In a case that bears some resemblance to the Saveme.com UDRP, a one member panel just denied the claim of a trademark holder for the generic domain name RentFaster.com
In this case like Saveme.com a domain holder registration predated the trademark holders registration and that simply carried the day for the one member panel.
Here are some quick facts and findings:
The domain holder registered the domain name RentFaster.com on July 23, 2000.
The Complainant registered several trademarks on the term “Rent Faster” with the Canadian equivalent to the USPTO on June 26, 2009, alleging its use of the mark began in 2003.
The Complainant’s argument was that it should be awarded the domain since the domain was going to a parked page which “hosted advertisements for Complainant’s competitors, from which Respondent receives click-through fees and was used “to disrupt Complainant’s business.” The Complainant further alleged that “Respondent registered and uses the domain name to commercially benefit from Internet user confusion.”
The one member panel found that the:
“”Complainant has failed to submit sufficient information to support the contention that that Respondent is not correct as to the registration date, or to establish Complainant’s trademark rights prior to Respondent’s domain registration.”
“Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent registered the rentfaster.com domain name in bad faith because Respondent’s registration predates Complainant’s rights in the marks.”
Clear enough.
Why a domain holder has to spent $5,000 to defend such a obviously flawed action continues to amaze me, but I expect the same outcome on the pending Saveme.com UDRP.
The domain holder did not ask for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) so the panel did not deal with that issue.
Good to read some good news. Common sense at work.
UDRP Good Work ! This blatant high jacking of people investments & hard work is a scam – great job
Depends on the price as to who was the hijacker. If complainant made no reasonable offer (eg. $500) then perhaps they deserved to lose. If they did, then given that domain is near worthless to anyone else (.net etc unregistered), hard to argue that their goodwill was not being gouged, and a pity that this could not be taken into account.
@R – The complainant is in Canada, and the respondent is in the US.
Also, respondents domain was registered years before complainant’s first use.
I fail to see any scenario where the respondent would deserve to lose.
No offer was made from the complainant for the domain name. The domain was purchased for the purpose of renting out properties the domain owner has. He never developed the site and therefore it remains parked.
I was witness to the whole process and just to clarify the owner of the domain name did not have to pay any legal fees. He responded to the UDRP himself.
These cases are far to easy to file. Just as it often is in cases of frivolous lawsuits, the Complainant should at least be forced to pay the Respondent’s legal fees. As it stands if they lose they shrug their shoulders and walk away.
Maybe I’m wrong. Is a similar system in place ??? The solution seems so blindingly clear. Is there some sort of Domain Name Tort Reform in the works. If not, I’m going to sue the first Complainant that pisses me off !
Can someone tell me the name of the group (3 letter acronym) that is working to fight this UDRP crap?
Thanks
Charles
@UDRPtallk Legally he doesn’t deserve to lose. Ethically may be another matter, if speculating yet unwilling to let market forces set the value. Though I appreciate that say an auction could tilt matters slightly in favour of buyers (but this may be a better scenario than the present one where the deck is stacked massively in favour of sellers).
How do you protect yourself?
Gee. I wonder just how many lawyers are advising clients, “yea, we can go to UDRP and try to get the name, just give me oh, $1500, $2500 etc up front and we’ll get er filed. Knowing damned well that a) the chances a slim for a win in this particular case b) the whole of the UDRP is so NOT UNIFORM that there is always a “chance” C) respondant rarely sues for legal fees/damages for the frivolous suit. I have recently been threatened with a very similar filing for a name I have had since January 05, by an entity that reged a tm in 2009 with a 2009 first use. I told them if you do file it, I will sue you for damages, as you have no case at all, and I will file for cancellation of your mark and all associated legal fees. This went directly to their “patent” attorney as he is the one who threatened me. Of course, hes the one telling his client we can go to UDRP and he gets paid no matter what happens.