+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5
1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 71
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    160

    POOL lost UDRP!

    Kirkbi AG v. Company Require / Karlina Konggidinata and Pool.com, Inc.
    Case No. D2004-0359

    The disputed domain name <legos.com> is registered with Transecute (I) Pvt Ltd

    ...The Panel finds that offering the disputed domain name for sale on a commercial website in the business of auctioning domain names amounts not only to registration in bad faith but also in use in bad faith...

    ...For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <legos.com> be transferred to the Complainant...

    http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2004-0359.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    3,831
    Interesting.

    I guess this means that anyone with a TM can look for names with that TM string included dropping, and have the UDRP ready to serve to Pool the moment it shows up in Pool's auctions.

    Once the bids are over $1500, the UDRP is cheaper.

    Too bad if someone else with a similar TM was participating in the auction - the UDRP takes precedence, and prevents Pool from changing the WHOIS when the auction ends.
    Captain Stupid.
    Jimmy James Inc. fan club membership # 3312

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverhill UK
    Posts
    141
    LEGOS?

    Surely similar words can be (have been) registered for ANY other goods or services?

    Was owner doing anything illegal with domain?

    From USPTO:

    Word Mark LEGO
    Goods and Services IC 011. US 013. G & S: Irrigation Equipment-Namely, Sprinklers, Drippers and Parts Thereof, Hose Adapters and Connectors, Spike and Slide Bases, Plugs, Caps, Valves, Sprinkler Heads, Nozzles, and Parts Therefor. FIRST USE: 19290000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650324

    Owner (REGISTRANT) Lego M. Lemelshtrich Ltd. COMPANY ISRAEL 100 Petach Tikwa Rd. Tel Aviv ISRAEL
    www.WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
    www.SKILFUL.com - Home Page

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wales (UK)
    Posts
    24,745
    makes no difference under the way panels decide disputes under the udrp - it boils down to if the panel thinks it was registered due to the little plastic bricks. they did. coming up with how the rules could be interpreted to get to that decision likely took a little longer.
    When using google for counts - use double quotes for usage counts for multiword terms and set "match type" to "exact" for all search volume lookups. Click here for more info

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    2,666
    udrp comitted another fraud. udrp should be looking if there are any shill bids, not if a generic name is infringing.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wales (UK)
    Posts
    24,745
    Originally posted by zxc
    udrp comitted another fraud. udrp should be looking if there are any shill bids, not if a generic name is infringing.
    why on earth would udrp look at shill bids - its purely a fasttrack service for entities with mark rights.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverhill UK
    Posts
    141
    "makes no difference under the way panels decide disputes under the udrp - it boils down to if the panel thinks it was registered due to the little plastic bricks. they did. coming up with how the rules could be interpreted to get to that decision likely took a little longer."

    Sorry Safesys - I disagree.

    It does not matter what RULES they use (or how interpretted) - however cunning or clever they think they are.

    What matters is the LAW.

    If they prevent others from using a word (that may be shared with others) then surely Edoardo Fano (WIPO panelist) aided and abetted Kirkbi AG to overreach trademark?
    www.WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
    www.SKILFUL.com - Home Page

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wales (UK)
    Posts
    24,745
    Every registrant agreed to be bound by udrp decisions when they registered/renewed their domain(s). there is always the option to go to court and the udrp decision is over-ruled by that. but the udrp itself is not law. not even slightly. but absent real law - it is binding.
    When using google for counts - use double quotes for usage counts for multiword terms and set "match type" to "exact" for all search volume lookups. Click here for more info

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverhill UK
    Posts
    141
    I agree and disagree Safesys :-)

    > Every registrant agreed to be bound by udrp decisions when they registered/renewed their domain(s).

    Yes - you have no choice but to accept them.

    Given that UDRP is *demonstrably* used to overreach trademark rights, to take domain from lawful owner, it is clearly an abuse of a dominant position.

    > there is always the option to go to court and the udrp decision is over-ruled by that. but the udrp itself is not law. not even slightly. but absent real law - it is binding.

    UDRP is clearly used as pseudo law.

    "The RULES lead me to violate trademark LAW your honour" - most convincing excuse ;-)

    Sorry - you cannot interpret any RULES to violate the LAW - ask a lawyer.
    www.WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
    www.SKILFUL.com - Home Page

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wales (UK)
    Posts
    24,745
    Thats why the udrp allows either party to defer to a real court of law. If you don't exercise that right, then you've simply agreed to be bound by the decision.

    If you use the courts, then the udrp decision *should* be meaningless - the same as if the udrp didn't exist.
    When using google for counts - use double quotes for usage counts for multiword terms and set "match type" to "exact" for all search volume lookups. Click here for more info

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Behind your curtains
    Posts
    4,790
    it is interesting though that UDRP decided how the domain *would* be used without it actually being used. This whole decision is scary.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wales (UK)
    Posts
    24,745
    not the first time they've done that - look at the garthbrooks.com decision for example.
    When using google for counts - use double quotes for usage counts for multiword terms and set "match type" to "exact" for all search volume lookups. Click here for more info

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverhill UK
    Posts
    141
    > Thats why the udrp allows either party to defer to a real court of law. If you don't exercise that right, then you've simply agreed to be bound by the decision.

    Sorry - that is simply avoiding the real issue - UDRP is being used to violate trademark law.

    The only redress for the original owner of legos.com domain - is to get involved in costly legal court battle - something that should not take place had WIPO not violated trademark law.

    UN WIPO clearly have made UDRP rules so that it is easy for their paying customers (trademark holders) to overreach mark.

    > If you use the courts, then the udrp decision *should* be meaningless - the same as if the udrp didn't exist.

    It was NOT MEANINGLESS - it was used to 'steal' a persons domain name.

    You totally ignore the fact that UDRP had been used to violate trademark law.

    The person could have even registered 'legos' US trademark for a new brand of trousers - or most anything else (except plastic bricks and irrigation equipment).

    So they could have trademark - but not domain name - therefore clearly trademark overreach.
    www.WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
    www.SKILFUL.com - Home Page

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wales (UK)
    Posts
    24,745
    It was NOT MEANINGLESS - it was used to 'steal' a persons domain name.
    The udrp defers to the court proceeding - thats why I said the udrp decision should be rendered meaningless if its taken to court.

    You totally ignore the fact that UDRP had been used to violate trademark law.
    Don't forget the ACPA also includes provisions at least broadly similar to the UDRP - confusingly similar to the trademark etc.

    The only redress for the original owner of legos.com domain - is to get involved in costly legal court battle - something that should not take place had WIPO not violated trademark law.
    if the tm holder had gone straight to court, rather than udrp the domain holder would have no choice but to engage in those costly legal fees.
    When using google for counts - use double quotes for usage counts for multiword terms and set "match type" to "exact" for all search volume lookups. Click here for more info

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Haverhill UK
    Posts
    141
    "The udrp defers to the court proceeding - thats why I said the udrp decision should be rendered meaningless if its taken to court."

    So we agree - UDRP is not meaningless - it was used to take a persons legally held domain name.

    "Don't forget the ACPA also includes provisions at least broadly similar to the UDRP - confusingly similar to the trademark etc."

    ACPA - that was a good one Safesys :-)

    I almost p*ss*d myself laughing.

    The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 was devised by those crooks (UN WIPO).

    Quote:

    As described in the White Paper, the United States sought the assistance of the World
    Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to initiate a balanced and transparent international
    process to: 1) develop a set of recommendations for an approach to resolving trademark/domain
    name disputes involving cyberpiracy; 2) develop recommendations for the protection of well-known
    marks in the generic TLDs; and 3) evaluate the effects of adding new TLDs and related
    dispute resolution procedures on domain name and trademark holders. The results of the study
    were to be submitted to the board of the new, not-for-profit corporation for consideration.

    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dco...epcongress.pdf

    "if the tm holder had gone straight to court, rather than udrp the domain holder would have no choice but to engage in those costly legal fees."

    Sorry to have to repeat myself again - you totally avoid the real issue:

    The word 'legos' could be used for almost anything (except plastic bricks and irrigation equipment).

    Surely then, the issue is that Edoardo Fano (WIPO panelist) aided and abetted Kirkbi AG to overreach trademark?
    www.WIPO.org.uk - Not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
    www.SKILFUL.com - Home Page

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  

Sponsors

Ending Auctions

Poll

Would you invest in IDN domains?
1. YES! They have a huge investment upside as the global market expands expanding
2. No! Too risky
3. Maybe, but I need to understand them better.
to see the Poll results!
 
DomainState.com
Domain Tools | Domain Directory | Registrar Stats | Domain Glossary | Industry Events | FAQ | Members | Terms | RSS | Link To Us | Advertise | Contact Us
Other Related Trellian Services:
Above Domain Parking Manager   |   Free Search Toolbar   |   Free Webpage Builder   |   Keyword Research   |   Search Engine Submission   |   SEO Tools
Copyright © 2002 DomainState.com a Trellian Company