Talk about a scary decision.
A domainer just lost a domain he paid $20,000 to acquire and recently valued it at $100K.
A three member WIPO panel took away, what most of us would regard to be a Geo domain, Hayward.com and wwwhayward.com and awarded it to the trademark holder Hayward Industries.
Hayward is a city in California with a population of 150,000 people.
Here are the facts as laid out by the panel:
“”The Whois records show that the domain name <hayward.com> was created on July 26, 1995, and the domain name <wwwhayward.com> was created on August 14, 2004. The Respondent acquired the rights to the domain name on or about July 31, 2006.”
Respondent states that “Respondent, Chad Wright, aka WebQuest.com, Inc. is in the business of providing pay-per-click search engines offered through his geographical domain names” and that “Respondent also owns generic domain names…” Respondent paid over $20,000 for the domain name <hayward.com>.
“”Complainant states that it sent a demand letter to Respondent regarding the disputed domain name <hayward.com> on August 1, 2006, a copy of which Complainant provided as an annex to the Complaint. In a response, also included as an annex to the Complaint, Respondent’s counsel wrote in a letter dated August 4, 2006, that Respondent “is the registrant of geographically designated domain names” and that Respondent would “prevail in any legal dispute over the geographical name <Hayward.com>…”
“”Complainant states that Respondent offered the domain name <hayward.com> for sale via an online auction, ending November 4, 2009, with an “opening minimum bid” of $100,000.00, as shown in an e-mail from SnapNames dated October 29, 2009.””
“””Complainant states that “[t]he main page of the “www.hayward.com” web site is a typical minimalist site set up by cybersquatters for the sole purpose of generating click-through revenue. Most notably, upon entering ‘hayward’ in the provided search bar, the user is inundated with sponsored links to web sites that provide access to the products of [Complainant’s] direct competitors.” Complainant further states that although the domain name <wwwhayward.com> “no longer resolves to an active page,” a previous website associated with that domain name, included as an annex to the Complaint, included links to Complainant’s competitors”””.
“””Respondent is correct in its observations that the word “Hayward” is the name of a city in California (and also has other definitions) and that pay-per-click (“PPC”) websites do not necessarily indicate that a Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.”
“””However… the websites associated with the disputed domain names in this case contain (or contained) pages with links offering or leading to pages with links offering goods or services that are competitive with the goods and services offered by Complainant under its HAYWARD Trademark.”
“Clearly, the disputed domain names are therefore not being used solely in connection with their geographic meaning. ”
The panel found that:
“It is by now well established that PPC parking pages built around a trademark (as contrasted with PPC pages built around a dictionary word and used only in connection with the generic or merely descriptive meaning of the word) do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor do they constitute a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii).”
“”Respondent has not shown that it has used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, either of the disputed domain names in connection with websites about the city of Hayward, despite a statement from Respondent’s counsel more than three years ago indicating that <hayward.com> was a part of Respondent’s portfolio of domain names that correspond to geographical names in the same region of California.”
“While Respondent was not obligated to immediately use either of the disputed domain names in connection with geographic-specific websites, Respondent should not have parked the domain name in the interim with a page that improperly profited off of the value of Complainant’s trademark with PPC revenue.””
“”Finally, the Panel finds it informative – though not decisive – that, according to documents in the record, Respondent purchased the domain name <hayward.com> for USD$20,000 and was attempting to sell it for at least USD$100,000. “”
“”These figures would seem to indicate that Respondent saw some value in this domain name for reasons other than its existence as the name of the city of Hayward, California – with a population of only about 150,000 people and for purposes other than as a PPC parking page (which, in the normal course, would not be expected to earn a return to justify such a rich investment).””
I’m not sure I have ever read a WIPO decision where the panel looked at the purchase price and then determined the motivation for the purchase based on the price.
They are basically saying that $20K for Hayward.com, a city of just 150,000 people, is way too much and the value of the trademark therefore must have been considered by the domain holder in paying that much for the domain.
If the domainer only paid $5K for the domain would have the panel then found the domain owner could have indeed bought it just for the value as a city?
If not then why would a WIPO panel even go down this line of reasoning and discuss the purchase price?
If the domain owner put up the domain with a reserve of just what he paid for the domain, $20,000 instead of $100,000 would the panel decision have changed?
If not then why bring this issue up?
This is another example of how domainers are sitting ducks with PPC pages, as almost every word, 2 and 3 letter combination and every saying and/or phrase is trademarked somewhere in the world and this system is build around taking away your property if you offer to sell it.
Image a law that allowed your house or car to be taken away if you just put an ad in the newspaper to sell it?
We hope that Chad appeals this ruling into Federal Court not just for his sake but for the interest of the entire industry
Great find this is interesting. I agree with your logic that they used the purchase price as a big factor in giving the name to Hayward Industries. They are now in the appraisal game. $20,000 for 150,000 population is not out of line.
But I do believe Michael that when people say they own a domain and respond that its a geo, and non tech people see it not used how the owner said it would be used, they think its not right. I am not saying that its not, but I think they look at the owner saying its a geo and then its just parked and not relating to the geo area. Again IMO
It was a radiculous WIPO decision. It put a danger to the owners of generic or GEO domains and we now better look into developing the generic domains or GEO domains as soon as after we buy.
I wish I could think of something intelligent to say about this but this is so pathetic I do not even know where to start. Absolutely ridiculous.
Bruce, just say it out loud BS
My BullS says it all!!! a bunch of BS
Scary
very scary
Agree.
RIDICULOUS !
just an hour before reading this i tweeted “people are strange. someone is asking me who gave me the right to register a geo domain name :)” … but now i understand that stranger things could happen. scary.
Indeed, this decision begs to be appealed in real court. I’d love to see Chad’s lawyers force the panelists to testify under oath as to why they even considered the valuation issue, as that’s clearly outside the area of their expertise.
Not outrageous at all. His parked page has nothing to do with the city. The lesson I get out of this is to make sure your parked page is better. Looks like the ones ahead of the curve got this covered, CarRims, Voodoo etc..
I have lived in HAYWARD CITY. This domain is valuable, to be honest, when i saw this domain in auction in moniker last year, I and my partner thought of acquring it around 40,000 dollars, as we both lived in hayward city, and could have built a city for that city area advertising.
We even contacted moniker, but they never replied to our email nor even phone calls. However I think this decision by panelist is extreme ridiculous.
I have never heard of hayward industries, but iknow hayward city very well. This is stupid decision by panelist, I think this name could be easily recovered, if this goes to federal court.
Panelists, are so stupid, and taking away someone livilihood and giving it away to someone for that cheap price. I think this decision is totally non judgemental, and it should not be baised on how someone is trying to sell their domain for 100,000 dollars which someone bought for 20,000.
I have sold names for 2000 which i regged for 7 bucks, should I be taken to court because I have made profit or intend to make profit.
If someone buy a house in todays market, which they would pay 10,000 today and later sell it for in 2015 or somthing for 100,000, should they be also taken it to court, because they are selling their house for 100k in 2015, which only worth 10,000 in 2010 when they bought it??????????
WIPO SUCKS, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING IT AS A PANELISTS ARE PIECE OF SHEEEET.
“It is by now well established that PPC parking pages built around a trademark (as contrasted with PPC pages built around a dictionary word and used only in connection with the generic or merely descriptive meaning of the word) do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor do they constitute a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii).
IS THIS TRUE ?!?! since when ? well established ?
“It is by now well established . . .”
What crap.
When it comes to their decisions, nothing is well established.
Nothing.
OH and when did panelist become experts at figuring out values of domains. Only about $150k . . .and it’s a sur name . . man this is just stupid stuff.
“”These figures would seem to indicate that Respondent saw some value in this domain name for reasons other than its existence as the name of the city of Hayward, California – with a population of only about 150,000 people and for purposes other than as a PPC parking page (which, in the normal course, would not be expected to earn a return to justify such a rich investment).””
Take care of your property or it will get seized. Fill up your back yard with trash and someone will smell it and will come knocking on your door.
Every person that reads this blog article, should send a polite but to the point email to Hayward Industries, stating that as a result of this decision you will boycott their company for life, and encourage all of your family, friends, and acquaintances to do the same. Make sure they get the impression that you take a pro-active stance against this sort of blatatn intellectual property rights abuse, and that they will lose business.
I just popped off an email to them, as I am a geo domainer.
HAHAHAHAHA
Thats what all you squatters will end up with. NOTHING! HAHAHAHAHAHA
Great name he did not use, except to infringe. Brilliat business model. Keep up the good work in domainland you MORONS
It was a radiculous WIPO decision !!!
@SquishSquash – Grow up and get a life! Your petty comments sound pretty jealous to me! This is likely NOT the last word on a very bad decision for this domain case. Looking forward to the federal appeal…..
For the latest and best info on all past and pending UDRP cases, try:
http://www.UDRPSearch.com
The amazing thing is that 25-30 new ones are filed EVERY DAY! And I’m sure that rate will only go up as more and more companies that missed the boat attempt to steal what doesn’t belong to them!
The dark forces are circling! We can either hang together, or hang alone!
This is why you need a good fund for taking these kinds of folks straight to court.
Turn the table on them and show the public who they are….thieves.
How can an “experienced” domainer let this valuable name sit there and knowingly let ppc ads run on it for years from a company who has interest in its competitors?
This is very basic knowledge that you do NOT do this if you are parking/holding a domain. I hope people reading this with similar names can learn from this.
Boulevards owns Hayward.net, a developed site about the community of Hayward.
JB
Lets not forget that Google and Yahoo collect millions of dollars in ad revenue from competitors placing ads on trademarked keywords and so far the courts say its OK
@JB yea every domain owner needs to baby sit each and every domain name and research all the trademarks in the database as well as stay up to date on every single filing that’s made in the database. . . oh and not just the US database but all the international ones too. We all need to watch every single domain, every day and monitor other peoples IP so we don’t infringe.
Get real !
This is insane and this is prime example of when a good domain industry advocate group could/should step in and make their presence known. One has to wonder if the WIPO panel was influenced by….let’s just say, more traditional means of persuasion.
This is another case of a domain name owner either reserving a domain or purchasing a domain and then not putting it to a bona fide use. Have seen this in other cases, one of which I won at the WIPO, where the owner of the domain says that the domain was reserved for fair use purposes but for whatever reason decides to sit on it for years. Decisions are pretty clear that sitting on a domain for years and not putting it to bona fide use can be used as evidence of bad faith and in some cases demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest. If only a web site had been launched that provided relevant and up-to-date information about the city, this case would have likely turned the other way. This is a case of inferences.
This is an outrageous decision. This is a prime example of why our industry needs a lobbying body and single voice to protect our rights.
Our property rights are being intruded on and people are not waking up!
WAKE UP!!!
If I were Chad I would not let this one go quietly.
We were warned about the problem with geo domains by two attorneys who thought it was a risk.
Bad decision or not, there is going to be a lot of people who have geo domains and think they have the world by the short ones who are going to be running for the Kaopectate today.
There in lies the danger with Geo domains. If you don’t think this just put a little damper on the values of these names, dream on.
Roger
Many cases have held and even this case sited that parking is fair use.
Moreover this case is nothing like say the dolphins.com situation where the whole page was made to look like the colors of the miami dolphins and all links went to miami dolphins related links.
Here the links went to competitors of the trademark holder, which honestly since this is not a famous company, it would be highly unlikely that anyone would have typed those into the search box, meaning it could have very well been done by the trademark holder themselves to boost there case.
Finally beyond the PPC issue your not addressing the very dangerous issue that WIPO is now taking into account the valuation of a domain for what I believe to be the first time.
This is clearly well beyond the scope of their power and authority.
To start to conclude what the buyer motives for acquiring a domain were based on the purchase price is a very slippy slope and should worry every domain holder.
I am responding to the posts that support the idea that an undeveloped domain insinuates bad faith in a court ruling. This speaks more to the ignorance of the regulatory body than to the actual use or misuse of a domain.
I have several geo domains that are waiting to be developed. Some have been waiting for years. I will get to them as I work through developing the many other domains I own. In the meantime, I have them parked. This is my perogative as owner. I am disturbed that my property could be seized without any actual wrongdoing on my part.
Barring an unlikely case of imminent domain, if I own an acre of land and no one can take it away should I choose to not develop it. If I put up a billboard on that land and earn some advertising revenues, that land is still mine to do as I please with.
It is wrong to seize a person’s property. This is called ‘stealing’. If the courts are (mis)used as a tool of that theft, it is still stealing.
I truly hope a precedent can be set in the Hayward.com case with a successful countersuit with damages for wrongful action on appeal. It worked for corporations who were being sued for every little thing to counter sue. Then as now, the clear message should be made that wrongful suits bring ruin not riches.
This is a horrible decision. I can see the logic in basing it on the content being similar to the plaintiffs business, however this shouldn’t hold the same weight as trademark or corporate infringement would. As for the value of the name, this makes the entire decision suspect and should have never been used as a ruling point. If I pay 5x what the perceived value of a given domain simply because I like the name, then why should that determin use and infringement?
I would however point out Toyota who stole Toyota.com from a small businessman named Toyota and did so through a court of law. Sometimes deep pockets outweight ones righteous position on the scales of justice.
If this decisi0n holds up, all domainers (including myself) will have to rethink the content of our parking pages. This is a scary proposition considering there’s no way to know if your PPC ads won’t be infringing on someones business niche somewhere and opening the door to a similar lawsuit.
This is a case of a few people interpreting the rules on the fly when it should have been settled in a court of law by a judge and argued by corporate attorneys.
IMHO
@MHB “Here the links went to competitors of the trademark holder, which honestly since this is not a famous company, it would be highly unlikely that anyone would have typed those into the search box, meaning it could have very well been done by the trademark holder themselves to boost there case”
The not “famous” line of attack is a red herring! The companys marks are REGISTERED and were used in a manner that was detremental to the company! As far as the liklihood of someone typing in the word Hayward and as far as the searches having been done by the trademark holder, pure and unadulterated speculation on your part. Funny how you chastize the panelists for drawing inappropriate conclusions while you flood cuberspace with your own. Anyone who pays 20K for a domain to park it without vetting for deserves what they get.
These kinds of rulings will continue to increase until politicians become motivated enough ($$$) to enact strict regulations and oversight on WIPO-UDRP.
Bekinstock
Famous meaning if its a trademark that no one has ever heard of much less products produced or sold by the trademark holder it seems VERY hard to believe that causal users are going to type in products of competitors.
If the mark is famous then its easy to see how causal users would type in related terms.
Now as to your statement:
“”Funny how you chastize the panelists for drawing inappropriate conclusions while you flood cuberspace with your own.”” (spelling from the comment)
Not funny at all.
I’m writing a blog.
I’m not a paid panelist who is suppose to make rulings based on LAW and previous rulings.
Yes panelist are held to a different standard then a blog.
I do not make law. I do not have the power to take people’s property away from them.
So yes I can make speculate all I want panelists cannot.
Point me to the legal authority that says the purchase price of the domain should be taken into an account in rendering a WIPO decision.
“Point me to the legal authority that says the purchase price of the domain should be taken into an account in rendering a WIPO decision.” -end
Exactly! This was an obvious grasp at a straw to justify a poor decision. This is becoming an all too familiar constant in such rulings. The term “farce” comes to mind.
I think domainers should start a fund for the purpose of fighting reverse domain name hijacking (which this clearly is). It’s in all of our interests to make sure decisions like this don’t go unchallenged in court and become precedents.
Chad probably has the means to fight this, but many other domainers don’t and are forced to accept the (usually bad) decisions which can be detrimental to the industry as a whole.
The maxim nowadays appears to be “Use it or lose it” ie. develop it..
Showing the potential complainant’s links (or even their competitors) on it is a no-no..
If I recall in a DS thread, this must have been the domain that the Sedo broker “inquired” with Chad “would you accept $100,000 for the domain” as a bait for the bad faith usage prong.
When the owner replied in the affirmative – used it against him in the UDRP.
“So yes I can make speculate all I want panelists cannot” (spelling from the comment!)
To say that panelists cannot speculate is naive as you need look no further than the decision here for proof of the fact that panelists can and do in engage in speculation. But way beyond that the system itself actually demands that panelists speculate. Look to the “registered in bad faith” prong for evidence of this. The notion that panelists are able to ascertain what was in the mind of the registrant at the time he or she registered the domain name in the absence of pure speculation is untenable. So while it may be more appropriate to suggest that panelists ought not to speculate the fact remains that they can, do, and that they are in fact often required to in order to administer a poorly written policy.
MHB-
You make all great points. As you know, every case is determined on a case-by-case basis. Panelists need to look at the facts of each case to determine the underlying motives of the domain name holder. Apparently in this case, the panelists believed that price was relevant – when lookig at all facts – for dermining motive. As you know, the losing party has the right to bring an action for reverse domain name hijacking. It will be inteesting to see where this goes.
I have read all this and lets say I disagree, lets ask the question, when was hayward founded, is it a corporation? does it have a charter and keep that city charter viable? do they preserve and protect their name?
and domainers came along hwen and are attempting to reign over all they percieve now and cannot believe that a city would prevail?
Jeremy
We couldn’t even get domainers to contribute to a fund to protect domainers interests from additional legislation from trademark groups (search the blog for ICA)
“”These figures would seem to indicate that Respondent saw some value in this domain name for reasons other than its existence as the name of the city of Hayward, California – with a population of only about 150,000 people and for purposes other than as a PPC parking page (which, in the normal course, would not be expected to earn a return to justify such a rich investment).””
This is the most ridiculous ruling ever – obviously made by some supreme court judge that is not in the business of domain names, a simple mind that uses the internet for email only! What is the threshold $5k? 10K? Why not set a standard so that rules are clear and transparent!
Hayward could be a popular last name, a pool product company whatever! This judge is not thinking beyond 4 walls. Case should be appealed!
Interval.in – Bollywood Social Network
NotSew
Lets just say Panelist can not make it up as they go along and I see no where that they can or have the knowledge of the valuation of domains to make a finding as they did in this case that the domain purchased for $20K was so outrageous that it certainly could not have been done without the domain owners knowledge of the trademark and their desire to trade off the mark.
Those actively involved in the domain business see domains purchased for a LOT more than $20K which wind up being parked.
SO if your going to speculate have some knowledge or basis for your speculation.
To conclude that there is no way a city domain is worth $20K and moreover that no one would spend $20K to park a domain of a city without taking into account a trademark is just incorrect and inconsistent with the reality of the domain market
If parking is going to be legislated to be bad faith per se, then let the panels say so, close Google, Yahoo and Bing down, since they certain cannot sell ads under PPC terms any more than domainer can sell ads under parked domains and we will all know were we all stand.
Stewart
The city did not bring the action and is not at issue here.
The action was brought by a private company which has the same name as the city
Totally predictable decision. The domain Complainant took an unreasonable risk by parking this domain and letting the software gravitate towards the trademark, rather than geographic, use. It was like putting your Mercedes in downtown Detroit with the keys in it and complaining it was stolen when you come back 3 days later to retrieve it. Protect your most valuable domains. Don’t park them. If you do, block ads which serve up trademark use.
Enrico
What is your take on the discuss the panel had on the purchase price of the domain and its interpretation that due to the $20,000 purchase price the domain owner had to take into account the trademark as the purchase price would not have supported just a Geo domain?
You seem to want to just disregard that part of the ruling
If parking is going to be legislated to be bad faith per se, then let the panels say so, close Google, Yahoo and Bing down, since they certain cannot sell ads under PPC terms any more than domainer can sell ads under parked domains and we will all know were we all stand.
Absolutely Michael let them have the guts to stand up and close Google,Yahoo and Bing. Either something is legitimate or its not. Only in domaining can you be half pregnant depending on who the (WIPO)OBGYN is.
I can’t believe some of your mentalities.
It’s OBVIOUS this man was trying to make a quick buck on the back of this company.
Sorry the big scary WIPO is stepping in and stopping this unethical piggybacking.
If you want to invest in domains as an investment, a PPC source, or for development as a desireable product, go for it.
But if your doing it simply to take advantage of pre-existing companies who have yet to establish a web prescence, then you deserve to be stripped of your domain name.
What this man tried to do was extremely unethical, and I am in full support of the WIPO’s decision.
The only thing “OBVIOUS” Jack is you have no clue. You are the typical troll the Internet gives a voice too.
Hayward Industries is not a common name universally known such as Coke or Mercedes Benz or Google.
The demand for people searching Hayward.com looking for Hayward Industries is minor at best.
Jack unless the owner set the keyword for Pool Supplies then he did nothing unethical. He should have been on top of the page to see what ads were showing but unless he knew Hayward Industries and what they did, nothing unethical. I would agree with other comments no one is putting in Hayward.com looking for Hayward Industries. Probably looking for the city.
Jack@ could you explain how you managed to come up with: “It’s OBVIOUS this man was trying to make a quick buck on the back of this company”.-end
How?
So far a couple of people have failed to realize we are talking about Hayward Industries. Not the City and not a company named Hayward Inc. Does anyone else see the irony of this? There was a city in northern CA who owned their cityname.com and for whatever reason they let it drop… Guess what! They lost the name (to a domain investor) and they have no recourse but to try and buy it back. I’m sure many of you read the story last week as it was big news.
Jack@ you’ve certainly shown us your mentallity. Your sarcasm preceeds you and you’ve OBVIOUSY got a thorn in your paw when it comes to domainers.
“Sorry the big scary WIPO is stepping in and stopping this unethical piggybacking.”-end
Really? So you want 3 man teams of uber goobers deciding how things are going to be for you then I take it. Rock on man.
Could you please explain how you came up with
“What this man tried to do was extremely unethical”-end
Again I ask. How?
“What this man did” was put it on a completely generic unoptimized lander that neither showed links to anything “pool” related nor “city” related. Completely generic without any auto optimization at all.
What Hayward Industries did was to use the search box and enter in “Hayward Pool Equipment” or something similar and print out those results pages and submitted them to WIPO as “evidence”, never revealing that they themselves completely manipulated the search results they took screen shots of.
The registrant had nothing whatsoever on the landing page relating to Hayward Industries or even generic pool supplies at all, so all this talk about how “he deserved it”, “unethical”, and the like is completely opposite of reality.
MHB,
The Panel clearly states that the purchase price is “informative – though not decisive.” It references the purchase price because, in the Panel’s opinion, the purchase price of 20k far exceeded typically expected returns, even with a PPC program. The main issue was the fact that the domainer was profiting from the Hayward trademark by utilizing PPC advertising that linked to competitor’s products. How is that “fair use?” Even if the domain was purchased for 1k, same result. In my opinion, unlikely there will be a new “how much did I pay for that domain name” test that’s determinative in future decisions.
Thanks for the post. -Roger
“Informative – though not decisive” implies that it was part of the evidence that the panel “weighed”. Standing by itself, it was not enough, but when added to other “evidence” it apparently tipped the scale.
However, it was obviously *not* “information”, but instead “disinformation”. We’ll see how it goes in the courts. I think the pool company will lose, when all facts are considered. At best, they might get minor money damages, but that in no way implies they are entitled to the domain name itself.
Roger
“informative – though not decisive.”
Means to me that it was taken into account as a factor, one important enough to mention in detail although not dispositive.
“”in the Panel’s opinion, the purchase price of 20k far exceeded typically expected returns, even with a PPC program””
What does the panel base this on?
Does the panel have any expertise on what domain typically sell for or what a “typically expected return”?
From their discussion I would say the answer is clearly no.
Therefore since they don’t know a thing about domain valuation or what a “typically expected return” is, how can they offer any opinion on this in a formal legal proceeding.
MHB –
Very good points.
It’s clear to most of us that the pool company found a way to exploit his parked page search to make it appear that he was infringing on them. The reality is is that Hayward Industries deceit worked on the WIPO panel. A good lawyer will probably get this decision tossed and all legal costs placed squarely back on the pool company.
Just another frivolous case that will help to clog the legal system further, and only caused frustration, simply to end where it began.
Totally nuts! Big business again trying to destroy the little man. Corporate giants are here to stay and continue to bully us into submission. People won’t put up with this for too much longer.
Media monopolies, like Florida Times Union, have the resources to build out sites like Jacksonville.com – so where the Panel in Hayward.com thinks they are doing the right thing in killing us – what they are really doing is killing small business and perpetuating big business – i.e. WalMart eminent domain using 3rd party results via Google, Bing, Ask as the justification.
Furthermore, ICANN thru its Gestapo agents, like WIPO, is simply a “non-profit” club redefining itself (for-profit) every opinion.
Finally when you are $20K into it plus another $7K in legal/UDRP – and the complainant knows they have an uphill battle – it is probably worth finding at least another $20K to challenge it in Federal Court. Certainly the city of Hayward, itself, might be willing to muddy the waters as well.
Brian
We shouldn’t confuse the situation here. Hayward Industries doesn’t apear to be a very large corporation. It seems to be a smallish company who have decided to exploit a hole in the decision making process. How much would you like to wager that the owner of the company was informed of a similar result while swinging a golf club and pounding a bear with a buddy who knew someone that did the same thing.
Things like this tend to make their way through the elitists grapevine very fast. This case will become the norm rather than the exception if it’s left standing.
UPDATE
The domain owner filed a federal case on this domain to stop the turn over
http://www.elliotsblog.com/webquest-files-lawsuit-over-hayward-com-1087