In a WIPO decision issued today a pretty generic domain domain, 7Days.com was awarded to a the owner of a trademark registered in Greece and Portugal.
Although the domain was parked, none of the links were alleged to go to the trademark owners site or competitors site, just a general parking page.
“”The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence of the Complainant that the Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel considers that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for a generic holding page does not constitute an offering of goods or services for this purpose.”
The domain holder did not file a response to the complaint.
What a silly panel decision. Many search engines are no different in structure than a parked page….a site full of links. How is that not use?
What a flawed system we have here.
I’m surprised that the news website 7days.ae did’nt try and buy that one. (or is it the same company?)
It amazes me all these decisions that say a parking page of links is not a legitimate reason to own a domain.
Google/Yahoo pays taxes, domainers pay taxes, Parking companies pay taxes – how can parking for PPC not be a legitimate use (assuming there’s not been any trademark infringment ?)
bizzare
How about that. It a case with Kevin Ham they did find that a parking page is a bona fide use of a domain. This is truly the Wild West of domaining. They don’t follow and set of rules and they just pull these decisions out of the air. I would think a lawyer would have a field day with them with so many conflicting decisions.
Compare lines from 2 different decisions.
VS. average Joe Domainer…..
The Panel considers that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for a generic holding page does not constitute an offering of goods or services for this purpose.”
VS. Kevin Ham…..Case 100101
“it is beyond debate that the posting of related advertising links constitute use of the domain name for the bona fide offering of goods and services.”
Well…which is it.
This is just another tick in a distrubing trend of hard-to-defend UDRP decisions. The domain industry needs to not only start protecting itself and taking better care of what we do with our names, but working to establish parking and monitization as a recognized legitimate use. We need to get ICANN to make a statement as such if we can.
“…working to establish parking and monitization as a recognized legitimate use. We need to get ICANN to make a statement as such if we can.”
Amen to that Chip, If we don’t then we’re all screwed unless we develop them all….EEEK
Chip
There are many decisions where the panel found the parking to be a bona fide use.
The decisions are all over the place including one panelist who said the other day he doesn’t have to take past decisions into consideration when deciding a UDRP.
Not responding to a UDRP procedure seemingly gives license to the panelists to make any determination they want to. THAT is why Kevin gets a ruling that parking is legitimate: he made that case.
Look, I’m not disputing there are more and more completely screwy decisions happening in this circus, what I am saying is that by every instance of not filing a proper response, all of us get pushed a little closer to the fire. Any domainer that does not bother to file a response for these things is not only an idiot, but a threat to the rest of us.
who have more money always wins on those who have less money
It is time that these panelist can be held liable for the decisions. It really seems to come down to:
a) which panelist you get and
b) if he/she has a good day
Other than that, there are no rules, no binding guidelines….
@cartoonz
Do you really think if they responded, the outcome would have been any different?
Agreed that people need to respond, but unless you are a player, you are going to lose.
Most times, the cost of retaining an attorney costs more that the domain is worth.
The parked page was not even showing infringing ads. So where is the bad faith?
“The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence of the Complainant that the Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services”
That would cover just about any domain that is parked or not in use otherwise.
Mike
Problem is if you don’t defend and lose several of these then when you have a domain worth defending at play all of these losses are going to haunt you as the panel will find you to be a serial cybersqatter.
WIPO should operate within a set of cleary defined rules and regulations, any descision should not be made just at the whim of whoever happens to be handling the case on the day.(which seems to be the case just now)
Suggesting that PPC is not a legitimate use for a domain should be made 100% unacceptable in any WIPO case.
(assuming there’s been no TM issue with the PPC ads shown).
Parking companies could also help alot by giving their customers complete control to either accept or block any advertiser on their domains BEFORE it shows on their PPC pages. That would cut down most of issues about potential TM violating ads and would probably help the parking company to limit its responsibility when it comes to the law.
It would make domainers more accountable for the ads they “choose” to display but it would also help domainers to protect their valuable names from being lost through WIPO descisions.
I don’t know how hard that would be to do but I do think that would be alot of the current problems solved fairly!
@Mike
“The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence of the Complainant…”
THAT is the kicker right there. See, if there is NO response, absolutely everything presented by the Complainant is automatically accepted as true.
Now, really, how often is that the case? Every accusation and assertion the Complainant makes is a factualy representation of the complete story? Not likely. But, left undisputed, that is exactly how these proceedings work. That hole right there also allows some of the more creatively ridiculous circular logic used by some of the Panelists to pervert precedence even further, later to be referenced by yet another Panelist later on.
In this case, there were several rebuttals that could have successfully defended the name… but since none were presented, we get this kind of garbage by default.
I’m surprise the ppc companies have not gone out of their way to help defend the use of ppc landing pages.
By the ppc companies not stepping up, they are allowing their future business erode away. If anything, they have the most at stake here.
Or, are the ppc companies saying by not doing anything, ppc is going to go away anyway?
Small
PPC companies are not named in the UDRP’s so they are not involved and cannot defend an action they are no involved in.
I understand that. But, they should be establishing rules higher up the line of authority. If UDRP and WIPO established stronger lines of proof, it would reduce the number of rogue panelist.
Small
UDRP panelist do not have to follow other cases even if they are higher up and they have said so.
The system is broken so you will continue to get cases that panelist reaches it conclusion first and then comes up with reasoning to back it up
smalldomainer “By the ppc companies not stepping up, they are allowing their future business erode away. If anything, they have the most at stake here.”
Exactly !
It would be far easier to organize strong action from halve a dozen parking companies who’s PPC revenues are massive than it would be to organize a few thousand domainers , most of whom probably make very little individually.
Domains/Domainers and PPC are the livelihood of most Parking companies whereas the vast majority of domainers do not make their living purely from domains.
It’s in the parking companies interest to step up and take some kind of control to clarify the rules of the PPC business with wipo.
There is NO logical or realistic reason whatsoever why (non TM infringing) PPC ads should ever be considered not a legitimate use….that it complete LUNACY.
(are they so different from the affiliate advertising model?)
Fix that and PPC might still have a future?
ps – I do realise that in the case of 7days it was more because the domain holder did bother to file a response to the complaint rather than because ofwhat ads were shown.
balls – I meant did’nt file a reply 🙂
Mike
This kind of BS demonstrates clearly the need for an ICA or some entity to champion the legitimate rights of domain owners against a system which is clearly at best flawed.
With ICA reduced now to 15 members, domain owners in general are getting exactly what they are prepared to pay for…no protection!…no voice at all at ICANN!
What has to happen for domainers to realise that, whilst not perfect, the ICA has protected our arses reasonably well in the past? We certainly need all the help we can get against the forces marshaled against us.
ggg