General Motors just lost a UDRP on the domain name desipte the domain holder offering to sell the domain to GM for as much as almost $57,000

Here is what the domain holder contended:

-The Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the CADILLAC Trademark because “[t]he only similarity that I can find between my domain name and the Complainant’s is the last name of Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac, the founder of Detroit, and ultimately who the City of Cadillac, Michigan, was name in honor of.

Various places bear his name in North America, in particular Cadillac Mountain, found in Maine; any number of business establishments, including Cadillac Ranch, located here in my home state of Arizona, and, of course, the town of Cadillac, Michigan.”

“The Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “I am clearly not profiting off their trademark in any way, shape, or form. The Complainant has not shown, nor is it any way obvious that my use of the website under the disputed domain name is targeting the Complainant. This could only be assumed, possibly, if my website would display pay-per-click links related to their, or their competitors’ sites, which is not the case here.”

“he Disputed Domain Name was not registered and is not being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “[t]here is no explanation in the Complaint as to why a business that was established countless years before I had registered the domain name (nearly 12 years ago) delayed until 2012 to contact, me, the owner of a domain name, which was so manifestly adapted to suit its business, or why Administrative Proceedings were not brought before now – if the domain name was considered to be a justifiable case of abusive registration.”

Here is what the one member panel found:

“Although Complainant states that Respondent has a portfolio of 83 domain names, Complainant has not argued that any of them other than the Disputed Domain Name prevents a trademark owner from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. ”

“Accordingly, the requisite “pattern” of conduct has not been established”.

“With respect to paragraph 4(a)(iii): Given that Complainant has failed to show how Respondent may be considered a “competitor,” and further, as discussed below, Respondent’s website using the Disputed Domain Name does not contain any links that Competitor alleges are competitive with Complainant’s own goods or services, the Panel is not persuaded that Respondent is a competitor of Complainant and, accordingly, this factor is unproven”.…