We alerted you to a UDRP filed on three generic Geographic domain names and today, a three member UDRP panel decided in favor to the domain holder on the domain names fortlauderdaleconvention.com, ftlauderdaleconvention.com, and browardconventioncenter.com

Here are the relevant facts and findings from the panel:

Complainant has registered the GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,642,822 filed February 6, 2002 and registered October 29, 2002);

1. Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark;
2. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names;
3. Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way;
4. Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website offering links to Complainant’s competitors;
5. Respondent receives pay-per-click revenue from the linked websites;
6. Respondent’s earliest registration of the disputed domain names on January 6, 2001 occurred significantly after Complainant’s registration of the <ftlauderdalecc.com> domain name on May 23, 2000;
7. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names;
8. Respondent is engaged in typosquatting;
9. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith

 

 

B. Respondent

11. Respondent operates a business that offers travel agency services relating to the City of Fort Lauderdale and Broward County and has done so for over 10 years;
12. Respondent has not attempted to pass itself off as Complainant;
13. Respondent provides useful tourism and visitor information relating to the Fort Lauderdale and Broward County areas;
14. Respondent did not register the disputed domain names with the intent to sell them;
15. Respondent did not register the disputed domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name;
16. Respondent’s disputed domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark;
17. Complainant’s mark is descriptive of a geographic location and is also generic;
18. Respondent is engaging in legitimate trade and business;
19. Respondent has not engaged in typosquatting;
20. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names occurred before Complainant’s registration of the mark, GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE;
21. Respondent did not register and is not using the disputed domain name in bad faith;
22. Respondent did not register the disputed domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business;
23. Complainant cannot monopolize the use of a descriptive geographic term on the Internet.

“Complainant asserts that it has established its rights in the GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark by registering it with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,642,822 filed February 6, 2002 registered October 29, 2002).  Complainant submits a printout from the USPTO website to verify its assertion.

Based upon the registration provided, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE

“”Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark.  The Panel notes that the fortlauderdaleconvention.com and ftlauderdaleconvention.com domain names include the geographic terms of the mark, while adding the descriptive term “convention” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”

The Panel acknowledges that the domain names do not contain any shared elements or terms when compared to Complainant’s GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark.

“The Panel concludes that Respondent’s disputed domain names are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy… because in each case the domain name is not sufficiently similar to the trademark to create any confusion. ”

“In particular, Internet users would assume that the domain names fortlauderdaleconvention.com and ftlauderdaleconvention.com related specifically to a convention or convention center in Fort Lauderdale, but that the GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark related to an entirely different concept of the geographic area or region of Greater Fort Lauderdale. They would also assume that the browardconventioncenter.com domain name related to a convention center in Broward County, but that the GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE mark related to an entirely different concept of the geographic area or region of Greater Fort Lauderdale.  “

“In light of the Panel’s conclusion that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain names are not confusingly similar to the mark, it is not necessary for the Panel to analyze the other two elements of the Policy.

Notwithstanding, the Panel will address whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain names.

The Panel is of the view that Claimant failed to make the prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) which would then have shifted the burden to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”

“Respondent also argues that the terms of the fortlauderdaleconvention.com>, ftlauderdaleconvention.com>, and browardconventioncenter.com domain names are common, generic, and descriptive, and therefore, Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on the terms on the Internet. ”

“Respondent states that the disputed domain names all identify a geographical area, for which the corresponding websites provide information.”

“The Panel agrees with Respondent and finds that Respondent can establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) by that means.”

“Because Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the browardconventioncenter.com, fortlauderdaleconvention.com and ftlauderdaleconvention.com domain names  pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is axiomatic that Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain names in bad faith”

“The fact that the registration of the domain names predates the registration of Complainant’s mark is further evidence that Respondent did not register the domain names in bad faith.