A UDRP panel just ruled against Netbank Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona, on the domain name Bancanet.com which is owned by  Banco Nacional de Mexico of Mexico.

Netbank claimed it has a federally registered trademark on the term but they didn’t.

We often chat about UDRP reform.

Here the panel found that the complainant brought the UDRP, that the domain holder has to spent money to defend, based largely on a non existent filed trademark.

Certain WIPO could check to make sure a complainant that alleges having a filed trademark actually has one before even accepting the complaint or before starting the proceeding which involves the expenditure of time and money by the domain holder.

Moreover there should be a penalty when a company submits false information in a legal proceeding.

Here is the short finding by the panel:

“The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and common law marks NETBANK and BANKNET (protected and used in connection with financial services in the United States and Canada), as the disputed domain name consists of the terms “banca” and “net”, which are Spanish for “bank” and “net” or “net bank”.

“In its Complaint, the Complainant relies on registered and common law marks NETBANK and BANKNET. ”

“The Complainant does not appear to own registered trade mark rights in NETBANK or BANKNET. ”

“With regard to common law trade mark rights, the Panel finds that the Complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence that it can rely on such rights under the Policy.”

“The Complainant has not provided any evidence whatsoever with regard to its business activities. No claim regarding a secondary meaning of the Complainant’s present and/or former company names has been brought forward by the Complainant, and absolutely no evidence in support of such claim has been presented to the Panel. As a result, no rights have been established by the Complainant in its company name Netbank, let alone in the second level of the disputed domain name “bancanet”. The Panel therefore cannot but find that on the record of these Policy proceedings the Complainant failed to establish the first element of the Policy.”

“As a result, it is not necessary for the Panel to make a finding with regard to the second or third element of the Policy.”