In a new ruling today on the domain radioshacksucks.com made it pretty clear if you own one of these company “sucks” domains if you park it you will lose it.
While such domains have been found to be fair use when there is a site with content related to fair critizim of the company, this WIPO ruling clearly states that parking such a domain will be fatal to continued ownership.
“””The Panel notes that Simply having a domain name with “-sucks” in the name cannot, by itself, establish fair use; one must look to the content of the website to determine if there is an exercise of free speech which allows the Respondent to rely on the fair use exception. To do otherwise would legitimize cybersquatters, who intentionally redirect traffic from a famous mark, simply through the use of a derogatory term”.
“”In the present case, the Panel notes that, as stated by the Complainant, the Domain Name is not redirected to a “gripe” web site, but is pointing to a web site with various pay-per-click links mainly aimed at directing visitors to competing third party commercial websites. Therefore, in light of such use of the disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that it is not necessary to further elaborate on the issue whether the use of a domain name including a trademark with the addition of a negative term as “sucks” for a criticism web site shows a legitimate interest under the Policy.””
“”Furthermore, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed Domain Name merely for a pay-per-click page which directs visitors to various third party commercial websites does not constitute a legitimate, non commercial use of the disputed Domain Name under the Policy . Such use does not constitute a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name by the Respondent within the meaning of Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.”
Might not be popular here Mike but I agree with that. What do you think about it ?
i agree… that ruling actually makes sense.
(arbitrator probably not a lawyer 🙂
Well the domain was making less than buck a month so I would have dropped it anyway…
I agree. The guy is guilty of cybersquatting.
If the website was truly a gripe site, he would have had a chance.
We all know better (I hope) that pointing a well-known trademark to a ppc site is inviting a fight. Especially, if the the ppc site has links to the TM’s competitors. I just checked it. It has a couple that would get him in trouble.
Also, he didn’t respond which made him appear guilty. (opinion)
The panelist was educated in the U.S. so he is familiar with the complainant.
http://www.globalintermediation.net/our_mediators/barbero.html
And, I would suspect his law practice is focused more towards corporate entities rather than domainers.
I’m sure he would claim no bias towards domainer. Right?
“Also, he didn’t respond which made him appear guilty. (opinion)”
Unfortunately, that is the viewpoint of most arbitrators as well, which actually is contrary to due process and “innocent until proven guilty”. Not responding, more often than not, results in an immediate finding for the complainant and then they fill out their reasoning to support that finding using whatever logic (or lack of) to support it. This poses a problem because later cases start quoting “precedence” from bullshit cases with made up logic… the common viewpoint now is that Parking Pages = non legitimate use, this is not “law” but a convenient tool for the arbitrators to use to gift domains to the complainants.
That said, in this case the decision was correct anyway. Parking a “sucks” domain is just stupid and not in the spirit of the law protecting such sites.
” The guy is guilty of cybersquatting”
So you think people were looking for Radioshack at Radioshacksucks.com ? I believe they were looking for a gripe site NOT run by Radioshuck, but that’s just me…
Let’s face it, freedom of expression is fast becoming passe, thanks to those corporate types at WIPO who do not know the meaning of our alien Constitution.
Windy City, either you didn’t read the opinion, or you don’t understand what Freedom of Speech means.
Had the site actually, and legitimately, been a critique of Radio Shack, then Free Speech principles would have been in play. But, the site was doing nothing more than attracting traffic for commercial gain — no legitimate commentary or criticism.
What a shock… “Gu Bei” was the respondent. Not like he doesn’t have a Zuccarini sized portfolio of cybersquatting domains.
Marc is correct
If the domain was a site which had fair criticism of radioshack, their business practices or someother “grip” abouth them, the outcome would have been different, even if the domain holder had not responded.
The point of the post was to put everyone on notice if you hold one of these …..sucks.com domains and you park it your going to lose it to a UDRP if it is bought
OK,
Let’s have a scenario that goes something like this.
Say Radioshacksucks.com has content that I have garnered many complaints from customers who have had poor products/service from. I had ads for Best Buy, Walmart, etc.
I feel I have the right of free speech to place my experience and others AND have ads. Or does that violate the right of Radio Shack to muffle dissent.
I don’t feel that dissent has to be a not-for-profit exercise. It has to have a level playing field and you evidently want the field tilted in favor of big business.
By the way, even a “parked page” is still an expression of free speech just by its name, but I doubt that you grasp even that, as the Constitution is not too valid nowadays.
Also, I have no *sucks.com or any negatory domain name, just one who does not mind the freedoms we once had and you seem to be giving away(maybe for profit, maybe not)
MHB you said:
“If the domain was a site which had fair criticism of radioshack, their business practices or someother “grip” abouth them, the outcome would have been different, even if the domain holder had not responded”
How on earth would you possibly know that?
Windy
Because there are cases in which actual “grip sites” were challenged by trademark holders and the caseswere ruled in favor of the domain holder.
Some of these cases are mentioned in the opinion, which leads to me believe that the panelist in this decision would have ruled the other way had this domain been going to such a site, rather than a parked page.
Having said that there is no one in the world that can guarantee how any court or panel will rule. We can just opine as to the most likely outcome based on past results
Bottom line to take away from this post was and continues to be that a ….sucks.com domain going to a parked page is a loser in a UDRP
Windy
Regarding your scenario, in which is a site with content also carries ads, it could go either way depending on many factors particular to the case
What ads are on the page.
How much content vs. ads are there, etc ,etc.
None of that has to do with the post which again is parked sucks domains means death to smoochy
Now I realized I should find some complaints about Radioshuck on the internets and make a static complaint page and wait for RS payout, I think those fuckers would like to pay 20 grand to get rid of it AND Randazza-Shmandazza would be happy too 🙂
Give Microsoft a break! They’re awesome and make great products.