UDRP Panel finds three letter domain name was not registered and used in bad faith

(This is a cross post from UDRP Tracker.)

UDRP complainant manufactures cameras used in science and industry, and claimed to be the sole user of the letters “PCO” in commerce. The respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2008 and never established an active website there. The UDRP Panel refused to transfer the disputed domain name to the complainant, finding that the respondent did not regsiter and use the disputed domain name in bad faith.

In making this finding, the Panel observed:

  • Contrary to the complainant’s assertions that it was the exclusive user of the letters PCO, it is in fact common three-letter combination.
  • A number of UDRP cases about three-letter domain names show that such terms are generally in widespread use as acronyms and it is conceivable that they are registered for bona fide purposes.
  • The complainant claimed to have a stong worldwide reputation but actually operated only in a niche, so there was nothing to support the complainant’s claim that the respondent was “obviously” aware of the complainant when it acquired the disputed domain name.
  • The complainant overstated its case when it claimed that there was no conceivable good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put.

For these reasons, despite the fact that the respondent did not reply in the action, the Panel denied the complaint.

PCO AG v. Register4Less Privacy Advocate, 3501256 Canada, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-1778 (October 30, 2017)

About the Author: Evan Brown is a Chicago technology and intellectual property attorney. Call Evan at (630) 362-7237, send email to ebrown [at] internetcases.com, or follow him on Twitter @internetcases. Read Evan’s other blog, UDRP Tracker, for information about domain name disputes.

Confusing UDRP decision regarding proof required for showing of no rights or legitimate interests

(This is a cross-post from UDRP Tracker.)

In the case of BroadPath Healthcare Solutions / Jerry Robertson v. Maria Piro / Nova Nordisk, a one-member NAF Panel held that the Complainant failed to meet the second UDRP element, namely, it failed to establish that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <broad-path.org>.

The decision is confusing because the opinion appears to be self-contradictory. The Panel noted that the Complainant alleged (1) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, (2) that the Complainant had not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s mark, and (3) that the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the Complainant argued, the Respondent was attempting to pass off as the Complainant to facilitate fraud on Internet users.

Ordinarily, in an uncontested UDRP matter (such as this one, where the Respondent did not file a response), such allegations would be enough to establish a prima facie showing on the second UDRP element. It is unclear what more the Panel expected to see in terms of proof of lack of rights or legitimate interests. The prima facie showing requirement is used in light of the difficulty of proving a negative, which is what the second UDRP element calls for.

In any event, despite the Complainant’s allegations listed in the decision, the Panel concluded, in summary fashion without explanation, that the Complainant failed to make a legally cognizable argument under this second UDRP element. For this reason, the Panel did not go on to analyze the bad faith element, but instead denied the Complaint.

BroadPath Healthcare Solutions / Jerry Robertson v. Maria Piro / Nova Nordisk, Claim Number: FA1709001748692 (NAF October 31, 2017)

UDRP complainant denied relief where disputed domain name also contained competitor’s trademark

A National Arbitration Forum panel denied relief to industrial manufacturer NSK (owner of the same mark) in a dispute over the domain name <skfnsk.com>. The panel found that the complainant did not meet the first element under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) – the disputed domain name was not confusingly similar to the complainant’s NSK mark..

The case serves as an example of a panel departing from the ordinary determination that a disputed domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark as a whole will suffice to demonstrate confusing similarity.

The distinguishing fact in this case was that the other portion of the mark (SKF) is the trademark of one of the complainant’s competitors. The panel cited two other cases where complainants were denied relief in UDRP actions over disputed domain names containing both the complainant’s mark and that of another company. In NIKE, Inc. and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Mattia Lumini and Yykk Snc, NAF Case No. FA1679233 (July 15, 2016), the panel denied relief to Nike over the disputed domain name <nikegoogle.com>. Similarly, in Dell Inc. v. Ionel Adrian Nicolae, NAF Case No. FA1683104 (August 22, 2016) the panel held that “Nvidia Corp. has not been joined as a Complainant in this matter and there is no nexus available through which Complainant can claim to have rights to the transfer of the <alienware-nvidia.xyz>”

NSK LTD. v. Li shuo, NAF Case No. 1683104 (February 16, 2017)

This post also appeared on UDRP Tracker.


Evan_BrownAbout the Author: Evan Brown is a Chicago technology and intellectual property attorney. Call Evan at (630) 362-7237, send email to ebrown [at] internetcases.com, or follow him on Twitter @internetcases. Read Evan’s other blog, UDRP Tracker, for information about domain name disputes.
.

Donald Trump wins smackdown victory in defamation and tortious interference lawsuit over domain name dispute

Donald Trump filed a UDRP action against plaintiff Stevens over plaintiff’s registration of the domain name TrumpEstates.com. While that action was pending, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Trump, his organization, and his lawyers, asserting claims of defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and also seeking a declaratory judgment concerning cybersquatting.

Trump moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The defamation claim failed because plaintiff had established a website at the disputed domain name that provided a link to a New York Post article that republished the report of the defamatory allegations, namely, that plaintiff had violated the law and had committed cybersquatting by registering the disputed domain name. This claim failed under New York law because words voluntarily disseminated to the world by the party allegedly aggrieved cannot, by definition, be found defamatory.

The tortious interference claim failed because plaintiff did not identify any third party with which it had a business relationship, let alone one with which the Trump defendants interfered and injured.

Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment sought an order from the court holding that plaintiff had not improperly registered the domain name. The court found that plaintiff did not offer any factual allegations of he acted in good faith when he registered the disputed domain name. Instead, plaintiff actually admitted that his business centered around the reselling of domain names. Federal law recognizes it to be an indication of bad faith when it offers to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign a domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in a bona fide offering of any goods or services. (In this case, the disputed domain name had been advertised as being for sale for $400,000.)

The case can be properly characterized as a “smackdown” because the court dismissed the action with prejudice, meaning that plaintiff does not have the opportunity to refile the deficient complaint. The court added some gloss on the part of the opinion where it determined that leave to amend it would be improper. It noted that the “network of regulations” that protect trademark owners’ interests in domain names makes “crystal clear that, even in cyberspace, the TRUMP mark is entitled to regulatory protection fair and square.” The court went on to note that it was inconceivable that plaintiff could, as the silence of his papers emphasized, plead any facts that would entitle him to co-opt the Trump name.

Stephens v. Trump, 2016 WL 4702437 (E.D.N.Y., September 7, 2016)

Evan_BrownAbout the Author: Evan Brown is a Chicago technology and intellectual property attorney. Call Evan at (630) 362-7237, send email to ebrown [at] internetcases.com, or follow him on Twitter @internetcases. Read Evan’s other blog, UDRP Tracker, for information about domain name disputes.

Trademark holder not entitled to domain name registered years before

Arizona State Trailer Sales, Inc. d/b/a Little Dealer Little Prices RV v. World Wide RV, No. FA1003001315658 (Nat’l Arb. Forum, May 7, 2010)

Startups in the process of selecting a company or product name are often frustrated to see that someone else, years ago, registered the .com version of their newly thought-of name. Similarly, companies that have acquired a trademark registration wonder whether they can use their crisp new registration certificate to stomp out someone else who has been using a domain name similar to the company’s new mark.

A recent case arising under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP for short) shows us that the earlier domain name registration is usually going to be on solid ground against a later-arriving trademark owner.

In the case of Arizona State Trailer Sales, Inc. d/b/a Little Dealer Little Prices RV v. World Wide RV, a National Arbitration Forum panelist denied the trademark owner’s cybersquatting claim against another company who had registered the domain name version of the trademark in 2006.

To be successful under the UDRP, the complainant would have had to show:

  • the domain name registered by the respondent was identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainint had rights;
  • the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
  • the domain name had been registered and was being used in bad faith.

The complaint failed on the first of these three elements. The panel found that the requirement of being identical or confusingly similiar “necessarily implies that Complainant’s rights must predate the registration of Registrant’s domain name.” Since the domain name in this case was registered years before, there was no relief to be had. The request to transfer the domain name was denied.

UDRP loser did not commit fraud on USPTO by saying it was exclusive user of mark

Salu, Inc. v. Original Skin Store, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1444617 (E.D.Cal. April 12, 2010)

This is kind of a wonky trademark/domain name case. So if that’s not in your wheelhouse, don’t strain yourself.

Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of plaintiff’s registered trademark. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the asserted trademark registration was obtained by fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Specifically, defendant argued that plaintiff misrepresented when it told the USPTO that its SKINSTORE mark had “acquired distinctiveness” (i.e., was not merely descriptive of the goods and servcies) by means of “substantially exclusive” use in commerce.

The court denied the motion for summary judgment.

Defendant had argued that plaintiff committed fraud by saying its use was exclusive. It pointed to a case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) that the plaintiff had brought against the user of the domain name eskinstore.com. The WIPO panel in that case refused to find a clear case of cybersquatting.

In this case, defendant argued that plaintiff’s earlier unsuccessful UDRP challenge to a similar mark showed there were third parties using the mark and therefore the claim of exclusivity was fraudulent.

The court rejected this argument, noting that the plaintiff had undertaken significant efforts to protect its exclusive rights in the trademark. (It had sent out an astounding 300 cease and desist letters in the past couple of years alone!)

Moreover, and more importantly, the court noted that the WIPO panel hearing the UDRP complaint specifically declined to determine cybersquatting had occurred, finding it to be a question of infringement better addressed by the United States courts.

Disclaimer in trademark registration sinks UDRP action

Ideation Unlimited, Inc. v. Dan Myers, Case No. D2008-1441 (WIPO November 12, 2008).

A trademark owner who notices that someone else has registered a domain name incorporating the owner’s mark can file an arbitration action under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP for short). This often serves as a quicker and less expensive alternative to pursuing the cybersquatter in court.

To be successful under the UDRP, the “Complainant” has to show all of the following three elements:

(a) the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(b) the “Respondent” has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(c) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Ideation Unlimited, Inc. uses a logo with the word PRESCRIPTION COSMETICS. It has a United States and United Kingdom registrations for this logo. But in the U.S. registration the term “prescription cosmetics” is disclaimed. (Trademark applicants are required to “disclaim” any exclusive rights to use terms within their marks that are generic or merely describe the products.”) In the U.K. registration the word “prescription” is disclaimed.

The panel concluded that “[i]f the Complainant has willingly disclaimed any trade mark rights in the entire term ‘Prescription Cosmetics’, it cannot and should not claim to have trade mark rights in that term by virtue of its . . . registration.”

But what about common law rights, you ask? After all, one can support a UDRP action even without a trademark registration. The panel noted as follows:

Of course, it is not necessary for the Complainant to establish registered trade mark rights – it would be sufficient for the purposes of these proceedings under the Policy for the Complainant to demonstrate common law trade mark rights in the term PRESCRIPTION COSMETICS. However in the Complaint, the Complainant relies heavily on the three device marks, and provides little evidence of common law rights or reputation.

The decision underscores the importance of keeping trademark registrations up to date. Presumably, the mark in question here could have acquired distinctiveness by now (it’s been in use since the mid-70’s) so the disclaimer probably isn’t necessary anymore. And the decision also shows the importance of submitting evidence (at least a declaration) showing what common law or unregistered rights the complainant has.