The owner of the domain name name eLeader.eu has just filed a UDRP against the owner of the domain name eLeader.com
According to eLeader’s site, it is:
“one of the world’s top mobile innovators in the smartphone business software market, with experience from the beginning of the smartphone industry.”
“eLeader’s state-of-the-art mobile enterprise solutions and associated cloud services are used today by global and national companies in over 50 countries worldwide.”
The corporation filing the complant is headquartered in Poland but has a US office in Colorado.
I checked the USPTO and did not find any live Trademarks for the term eleader but three dead ones.
The domain name eLeader.com was first registered in 2003 and the current owner of the domain has owned it since at least 2004 according to Domaintools.com
The domain in question currently goes to a landing page with a big “this domain is for sale” on the top of the page.
Why buy a brand when you can steal one – Unknown Commenter
The UDRP panel must not transfer this name. It would be ridiculous. You should have to have a TM to even file a case.
*
In the U.S., one can establish a natural TM through commercial use.
Perhaps this ought to change, given that that the global reach is so vast.
I’m not sure what the law says in Poland.
Definitely, the UDRP is seriously broken and needs to be reined in, furthermore, panelists should stick to the criteria as set forth by ICANN. And if the criteria is not clear, then they need to be reworked with common sense guidelines that protect both TM holders and domain investors.
Also, one-word generic words should NOT be TM’ed as text mark for any purpose (although a grandfather clause could be invoked for existing businesses).
Corporations should brand their own made-up names and do more than sticking an “e” or “i” in front of a word.
*
…even should they lose, they are only following an easy and risk-free path to taking a name. They would be foolish NOT to give it a shot as there are no consequences in losing.
Apparently dark days seem to be ahead for parked page domain names…or at least those that are wanted by other concerns…
I guess there is no such thing as a frivilous claim withUDRP.
Insane. eLeader.com should do a counter-UDRP against eLeader.eu. Just for fun and all.
Time for a wake up call here, someone is asleep at the wheel, this trend started 2 months ago, it seems to be snowballing, one of you overpaid agencies, might want to start throwing some darts at this…
What is it going to take, for some poor charity to get their name stolen in UDRP to bring world wide appeal to this nonsense.
But… isn’t the ruling already issued? http://www.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=100364
@ Ms Domainer
Your comment about establishing a TM through commercial use.
If a phrase has been used for a number of years to promote a city, but never TM’d, and I was to apply for a TM on the phrase(because I recently reg’d the .com with that phrase), would I have legal rights to the name?
Ms Domainer or anyone please feel free to comment.
PS, I would use the name to promote businesses in the city in the same way as the “phrase” has been used.
As folks ought to know by now, TMs generally arise from usage in commerce (a.k.a. common-law mark) rather than registration. Of course, it’s easier to demonstrate that with a registered mark than a common-law one.
We’ll know soon enough for this one.
Well, tell that to Shell. IIRC, they’ve been using that word as a mark for petroleum for at least a hundred years. (I think…)
That depends on the circumstances. A TM aims to prevent consumer confusion (sometimes depending on context), and not necessarily grant some magical claim towards its domain name-sake.