Ari Goldberger beat back a UDRP brought by Rising Star AG of Bottighofen, Switzerland on the domain name RisingStar.com

The complainant which at one time purchased the domain name for $5,000 let it expire, and was picked up on a domain auction.

After it dropped the domain holder parked the domain and the parked page contained an offer link.

Here are the relevant facts and finding by the three member panel:

“The Complainant is a Swiss company engaged in financial consultation services. It was founded in 2001 and is incorporated in the commercial register of the Canton Thurgau, Switzerland.

The Complainant is owner of the following trademark registrations:

– Swiss trademark registration no. 604110 RISING STAR CAPITAL LTD. (device), applied for on August 4, 2010 with a term of protection until August 4, 2020 for “financial services” in class 36.

– Swiss trademark registration no. 560385 RISING STAR AG – INVEST WITH THE BEST (device) applied for on July 5, 2007 with a term of protection until July 5, 2017 for “financial services, in particular in connection with hedge funds and private equity” in class 36.

The Complainant holds the domain name <risingstar.ch> under which it operates its website.”

“In 2006, the Complainant mandated G.S. to arrange the purchase of <risingstar.com>, the disputed domain name. ”

“The purchase was completed for the price of USD 5,000 from its former owner P.B. According to a WhoIs excerpt provided in Annex 10 to the Complaint at least in 2007 the disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Complainant, but with the administrative and technical contact name G.S.”

“Thereafter, the disputed domain name was redirected to the domain name <risingstar.ch>.”

“At a point of time not further specified by the Complainant, G.S. failed to renew the registration of the disputed domain name. ”

“The disputed domain name then became available again for purchase. ”

“In 2010, the disputed domain name was purchased at a domain name auction. ”

“At present, the disputed domain name is held by the Respondent who is operating, under the disputed domain name, a landing page with links to other websites via links named “Rising Star Casino”, “Rising Star Indiana”, “Karaoke”, “Jobs Hiring”, “Jobs Opportunities”, “Softball”, “Internship”, “Part Time Jobs”, “Employment Jobs”, “Jobs Jobs Jobs” and “Easy Jobs”. ”

“At the same time, the website displays a notice that the disputed domain name may be purchased.”

“The Complainant argues that it owned the disputed domain name from 2006 onwards and that G.S. did not renew the registration in breach of the mandate agreement. ”

“According to information obtained by the Complainant from Afternic, the broker of the former registrar “register.com”, the disputed domain name was sold at an auction for USD 1,000 in 2010. ”

“The Complainant claims that, as the disputed domain name is now for sale, it seems obvious that its present owner, the Respondent, bought the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant who had owned it years before. The Complainant also argues that it never authorized the sale to the Respondent.”

“The Respondent claims that it purchased the disputed domain name at the domain name auction for the price of USD 3,330. It argues that it purchased the disputed domain name because <risingstar.com> contains the common English dictionary words “rising” and “star”, which is also a common phrase to which it believes no party could claim exclusive rights, the name of the term meaning “a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity”.

“Also, it registered the disputed domain name after it expired, was deleted, and offered for purchase at an auction. T”

“The Respondent claims that it did not register the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademarks in mind and had no knowledge of the Complainant, its website, its business name or trademarks, when it purchased the disputed domain name two and a half years before the present proceedings commenced.”

The Panel found that the domain use by the domain holder was legitimate:

“As far as the circumstances of registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent are concerned, the Complainant has merely stated that the disputed domain was sold at an auction for USD 1,000 in 2010, which is no clear statement even to the effect that actually the Respondent bought the disputed domain name at the auction for this price. ”

“It further states that the Complainant never authorized the sale to the Respondent, and alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as there is no evidence of the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ”

“However, the Complainant fails to provide any concrete facts supporting its allegations. ”

“As opposed to that, the Respondent contends that it bought the disputed domain name at an auction for the price of USD 3,300, from which one can take the undisputed fact that the Respondent bought the disputed domain name at an auction for a price of at least USD 1,000, which is an amount considerably in excess of mere registration costs for a domain and can be considered an investment in a domain name. ”

“Besides that, the Respondent has stated that the motivation for its choosing the disputed domain name for acquisition was the fact that “Rising Star” is a generic dictionary word or descriptive domain name in line with other names it has already registered on its behalf and in line with the intended subject matter of the website, for which it is descriptive in order to generate revenues by pay-per-click advertising links related to general interest topics alluding to the common meaning of the phrase “Rising Star”.”

“As the Complainant did not provide any further facts in this respect in the first place, it cannot be expected that it would have been in a position to substantially rebut these contentions, so considering also that the arguments of the Respondent make sense from a commercial perspective, the allegations of the Respondent appear well-founded. ”

“In fact, the pay-per-click links provided by the Respondent on the website, into which the disputed domain name resolves, all relate to employment opportunities and entertainment. For these subject matters, the term “Rising Star” is a word that bears a positive connotation, meaning either a person who succeeds in his or her job (“the rising star of the xyz company”) or gives an outstanding performance in the entertainment sector, to which the links “recordsong”, “karaoke” or “casino” relate.”

“The Panel shares the opinion of the Respondent that the offering of a domain for sale per se is not necessarily improper and does not make its use illegitimate”

“Finally, the Complainant has not shown, nor is it in any way obvious that the Respondent with its use of the website under the disputed domain name is targeting the Complainant. ”

Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the Panel holds that the Complainant has not made its case under the paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in that it has not established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

“Considering the fact that the Complainant has failed to make its case under the paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy as outlined above, there is no need for this third requirement for the requested transfer of the disputed domain name to be discussed in detail. However, the Panel wishes to specify that the Complainant has failed to provide evidence for any of the above criteria set out in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy to prove registration and use in bad faith. ”

“In particular, given the circumstances of the loss of the disputed domain name by the Complainant at an unspecified point of time after 2006, and the mere information that the disputed domain name was bought at an auction in 2010, and to infer from this meager information that “it seems obvious” that the Respondent bought the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant, and to infer additionally that “these circumstances are indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purposes of selling the domain name to its former owner”, are conclusions that are entirely unwarranted in the absence of further evidence. ”

“Besides that, it is not obvious or conceivable that the Respondent, who according to the Response is based in Canada and Hong Kong, went to the auction with the Complainant in mind and to see if it could get a domain name that reflected the trademark or the company name of the Complainant. In this respect, this Panel accepts the submission of the Respondent that knowledge of a foreign trademark, unless demonstrably known in a trans- or international context, is not imputed in this case”

“Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not provided evidence of the element of registration and use in bad faith under the paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy either.”

It appears the domain holder did not ask for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).