Freshlook.com a domain bought at a SnapNames.com drop auction for over $3,500 in Feburary has just been lost in a UDRP.

The UDRP, which we wrote about when it was first filed two weeks after the end of the auction was decided by a one person panel from the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)

The domain was still in the name of the registrar Endurance International Group when the UDRP was filed so its not clear if the winner of the auction paid for the domain.

I can tell you that Endurance International Group did NOT submit a response and that as we pointed out when the UDRP was filed the domain was going to a parked page which did have results for the trademark holder.

Here are the relevant facts and findings:

“Respondent is using the freshlook.com domain name to operate a web directory. “

The web directory located at the freshlook.com domain name lists links titled “CIRCLE LENSES OFFER,” “Freshlook Color Contacts,” “Freshlook Colorblends,” and others.

Respondent may be using the disputed domain name to sell Complainant’s goods or to list links of Complainant’s competitors. 

Respondent’s use of the domain name to operate a web directory listing Complainant’s business and competing businesses is not a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy

“Complainant asserts that Respondent operates a web site at freshlook.com seeking to generate “click-through” revenue from users searching for information about Complainant and its contact lens products. “

“Complainant argues that because the FRESHLOOK mark is well-known in connection with Complainant’s contact lens, it is clear that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent to divert users seeking information about Complainant or its products to Respondent’s website.  Respondent’s freshlook.com domain name resolves to a web directory which lists links titled “CIRCLE LENSES OFFER,” “Freshlook Color Contacts,” “Freshlook Colorblends,” and others. “

“The links provided at Respondent’s domain name may sell Complainant’s products or the products of Complainant’s competitors. Because the Panel finds that Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to its own website for its own commercial gain, the Panel holds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy”

The Panel finds that, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant’s rights. Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).