La Salle University won control of it’s direct match .com domain name today LasalleUniversity.com in a one member UDRP ruling.

The fact that La Salle, won control of this domain isn’t the story.

The story is it took La Salle over 13 years to even file the UDRP against a domain holder who was not only parking the domain name with results going to other educational links but even sold email addresses to third parties using the domain name.

The domain was registered in July 2000.

The UDRP was filed by the school in August 2013.

That is more than 13 years and this is a direct match domain name to the school which has a trademark registered since 1994 and says it has been providing higher education services since 1863.

Yes 1863.

The other story, beyond the utter failure of the School to protect its trademark rights for over 13 years on its direct matching .com is the attitude of the domain holder who put a $500,000 price tag on the domain name telling the school that it was a special high price just for them, higher than he would have quoted to other buyers.

All and all a pretty amazing story and you have to read the quotes from the domain holder.

La Salle University operates the website with the domain name and provides e-mail accounts to its students, faculty, administration and alumni using the @lasalle.edu domain name.

Alumni can keep @lasalle.edu e-mail accounts for their lifetime.

Complainant, La Salle University, offered to compensate Respondent $500.00 to transfer the domain name to La Salle University

Respondent rejected the offer stating that, “The only way that your client can acquire this domain is to purchase it from me at a very premium price.

“In terms of the price, add three more zeros to your original offer, and perhaps I may consider your offer”, Suggesting a purchase price of $500,000″

The domain holder not only parked the domain but “has been offering e-mail addresses at the lasalleuniversity.com domain name” just like the school does through its .Edu address.

“Such e-mail addresses are not affiliated with La Salle University and create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and the LA SALLE Marks. ”

Duh

The domain name currently provides, among other things, links to searches for La Salle University, Application for Admission, Basketball Scholarships, Campus Colleges, and College Scholarships.

These links do not redirect users to La Salle University’s official website.

As to the offer to purchase the domain name made by the Complainant, the domain holder asserts:

“The Complainant has offered me, the Respondent, the amount of $500 because they believe that this is the rightful value of what is due to me.

“Isn’t the Complainant an institution in the United States.”

“Last I heard this is a free enterprise society, meaning that the value of any goods and services is primarily based not only on the law of supply and demand, but also what the seller is willing to sell at AND what the buyer is willing to pay.”

“First, in terms of supply, there is only one LaSalleUniversity.com.”

“Therefore, the price should skyrocket since the supply is limited. ”

“Second, I as the owner is not will to sell for $500. ”

“Because the Complainant came across in their first contact to me as an arrogant swanky institution who can easily bully a small guy like me, well then, I gave them a special price just for them:

$500,000 in US Dollars.”

Anybody else will pay a much much lower price.”

“what business is it of the Complainant if I exercise my right to do something or to do nothing with my property?

I am the registered owner and I have the right to do as I please…”

The Respondent admits that he registered the disputed domain name together with hundreds of other domain names in the early 2000 decade, that “the next big thing at the time was to list your domains with websites like Sedo.com for monetization,” and that there is a purpose for the disputed domain, which is to list it with Sedo.com so that it earns enough money to pay for the annual dues at GoDaddy.com.

It is clear for the Panel that: a) The Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering or goods or services; (b) The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; and (c) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and on the contrary, the intent for commercial gain is clear and evident.