Over a month ago we told you about the UDRP filed by GoodTherapy.org, LLC to grab the .com version of the domain.

Tonight the UDRP decision is out GoodTherapy.org lost its attempt to grab the domain GoodTherapy.com, without the domain owner even filing a response.

Although the .Org domain holder had a registered trademark with the USPTO, the trademark wasn’t registered until January 9, 2007 while the domain name GoodTherapy.com was registered on November 29, 2003 and the panel found that the complainant filed to prove any common law rights to the term Good Therapy.

Here are the relevant findings by the one member panel:

“”Complainant asserts that it owns common law rights to the GOOD THERAPY mark. “

“Complainant states that it has been using the GOOD THERAPY mark in commerce since as early as October 10, 2001, and argues that “[t]his use in commerce of the mark GOOD THERAPY grants Complainant common law rights in the mark as of the first date of use.” 

“Complainant goes on to argue that its GOOD THERAPY mark is not descriptive and cites section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, which “provides that the substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark applied to the applicant’s goods for five years is prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive.”  Complainant connects these two arguments by stating “Complainant’s nearly thirteen years use of the mark establishes that Complainant’s use of the mark is distinctive to Complainant.  In addition, Complainant has distinctive common law rights in the mark GOOD THERAPY separate and distinct from the right conferred to Complainant in the registrations owned.”

 

 “Complainant does not, however, show any evidence or give any arguments that it had acquired common law rights in the GOOD THERAPY mark in the 2 years between its first use and Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in 2003.  Complainant did not provide any evidence at all that it has been the exclusive user of GOOD THERAPY, particularly pertaining to those early years.  Complainant also does not provide evidence of distinctiveness, again particularly pertaining to the period 2001 to 2003. 

“Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has not shown common law trademark rights in GOOD THERAPY for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”

 

“Since Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel declines to analyze the other two elements of the Policy.  “