Frank Schilling’s Name Administration won a UDRP on the domain name TableforTwo.com who was defended as usual by John Berryhill.
The complaint was brought by Julie Wampler of Washington, D.C. back on September 15th who runs a blog at TableForTwoBlog.com and got a trademark on the term TABLE FOR TWO on March 13, 2013.
The Domain Name TableForTwo..com was registered on September 8, 2004.
The Complainant argued that Name Administration’s asking $89,000 for the domain name was proof of bad faith within the meaning of the UDRP.
The panel disagreed.
However, despite the fact that the Complaint was brought on a trademark registered some 9 years after the domain was registered the panel refused to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seemily based on her misunderstanding of the meaning and how archive.org worked, as she believed the domain name registrant had changed since her alleged first use of the term which she claimed was well before her registered mark.
Again a UDRP panel seems very willing to give a Complainant the benefit of the doubt when it comes to lack of knowledge as in this case or if they are a virgin to the UDRP process as in this case
Here are the relevant findings of the three member panel:
“A majority of the Panel takes cognizance of the following factors in finding that the Respondent has indeed demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:
a. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2004, well before the Complainant’s first use of the trade mark TABLE FOR TWO in 2011.
b. The Disputed Domain Name appears to reflect a relatively common and descriptive phrase, as the other registered trade marks provided by the Respondent for the same trade mark show. The trade mark TABLE FOR TWO does not appear to be associated exclusively with any single party.
c. None of the links which appear on the website attached to the Disputed Domain Name are in direct competition with the activities of the Complainant, which is an important consideration in determining whether the Respondent’s conduct could be considered fair. Rather, the links are in connection with food and restaurant services, all of which fall within the meaning that the descriptive phrase TABLE FOR TWO suggests.
d. It is well documented that the Respondent is in the business of monetizing descriptive domain names.
The Panel also accepts the Respondent’s evidence that the links on its website do not specifically indicate a targeting of the Complainant.
A majority of the Panel view is that the Complainant has not carried its burden of proof under this Policy heading.”
“The dissenting view by Panelist Christie is that the use of a domain name to resolve to a landing page with automatically generated PPC links (even those that relate to the meaning of a descriptive phrase) does not, of itself, constitute a bona fide use so as to give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the domain name for the purpose of the Policy. In Panelist Christie’s view, this must be so because otherwise the trivial act of using a domain name to resolve to a landing page with automatically generated links would immunize the domain name from action under the Policy, whatever might be the intention of the registrant or the effect of the registrant’s actions. In Panelist Christie’s view, something more is required to give rise to rights or legitimate interests in a domain name – something that constitutes a genuine offering of goods or services.””
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
To prevail, the Complainant must prove all three requirements under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Since Complainant does not meet the second requirement in connection with the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, it is not necessary for this Panel to consider the issue of the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith any further.
However, for the sake of completeness, the Panel considers it appropriate to state its unanimous view that, because the Disputed Domain Name was registered seven years prior to the creation of the Complainant’s rights, there could not have been bad faith registration in this proceeding.
D. Abuse of Process
Although it is a close question, the Panel declines to make such a finding in this case.
The mere lack of success of a complaint is not in itself sufficient to constitute a bad faith finding and while the Complainant has advanced a weak case, its argument was not so completely void of merit, and it was not so obvious that the Complainant was misunderstanding the meaning of the pages it found through the “www.archive.org” website, that the Complainant must have appreciated that that was the case and made a bad faith decision to go ahead with the Complaint anyway.
The Panel is not persuaded that this Complaint was brought in such bad faith.”
IMHO when you price a domain, you have always to take into consideration, among other factors, the size, competition and profitability of the businesses which are inquiring (as I said for Wine.Club elsewhere …).
If your only potential buyers are in the food blog, small restaurant business and similar, it’s very unlikely, just to use a euphemism, that they can afford to spend 89k USD for a domain without sinking all the business … some seller should be a bit more realistic about pricing …
Otherwise you have to find a different company which can afford to invest all that much … and the ability of succeeding in that depends on how many different businesses can use a specific domain/keyword with the all thing making some sense, on how “flexible” is the domain in question … 🙂
Ya, 89 k is super unrealistic for table for 2. It is targeted at a dating industry, which doesn’t make money aside from online dating (and most match makers dont make money, and those that do unlikely to still pay 90k for a name that has two versions (two and 2) ) . Maybe 5-10 k range would be much more likely. I dont see it going for more than that.
Frank Schilling’s Name Administration past sales record is proof of an end-users realistic values, what you see is not relevant.
Sales are case by case situations, you can’t extrapolate an absolute proof of realistic end-users values for future transactions from very different past domain deals … it’s like comparing apples to oranges … and who are you to say “what you say is not relevant”? who do you think you are? do you think to be the god of domaining or what? that’s so pathetic … get a life and stop acting just like a “bootlicker” … lol 😀
It’s sad that people have Ego’s so big that they think they know how to negotiate better than other people like Frank Schilling. Well, I guess it’s not really sad, it more pathetic.
Congratulations to the both of you on not understanding the targeted customer base.
“Table For Two” has nothing to do with Blogs and everything to do with the Restaurant industry which is worth a considerable amount. Certainly, a blog based website may not be able to fork out $89k for the domain, but a well established restaurant chain wouldn’t bat an eyelid at such a price, it is just whether or not they would be interested.
If you have a potential customer approach you, no matter the industry, you do not price the goods to meet the customers needs, you price the goods at the perceived market value. In the event that you wish to make a sale and are willing to lower the price, then you take into account the current potential customer and what they can afford. But that is only if you NEED to sell.
Hmm, ya, i guess it could work for restaurant. Then ya, money wouldn’t be an issue for that industry.
I still think its overpriced, just from layman perspective. Simply because Table for two can also be table for 2 . This creates dissonance and doesnt pass radio test. If big chain would pay big bucks, i am pretty sure for 90k they want name that doesn’t have 2 spellings.
That would really depend on which spelling is most likely to stick though, technically what with l33t crap and twitter shortenings, EVERYTHING is open to multiple spellings.
“Table for Two” has been used in pop culture (songs/movies/books) and so has an benefit on that front. Not only that, but it is more aesthetically pleasing than “Table for 2” so the chances are that “Table for Two” would be the default spelling for those looking for a more upmarket dining experience for romantic purposes…”Table for 2″ on the other hand has been used in relation to small greasy eateries so from a marketing perspective, if you are looking for a more up market clientele who will bring class to your establishment, “Table for Two” fits better.
Again, it comes down to the targeted market.
“Congratulations to the both of you on not understanding the targeted customer base.”
And who said I didn’t? an anonymous janedoe? that’s laughable … 😀 … another Frank cheerleader? … no courage/dignity to talk with your real name? … haha
First, I mentioned food and the restaurant industry, so your rant is totally out of place (can’t you read? lol)
Secondly, a “well established restaurant chain” can surely afford it (I didn’t mention big chains), but there should be such a chain, they should be interested in that particular “branding”, and they have to be willing to pay that price, even if they can afford that doesn’t mean they surely want to invest all that money in a domain only … you clearly have no idea about the cost structure of a restaurant chain …
“If you have a potential customer approach you, no matter the industry, you do not price the goods to meet the customers needs, you price the goods at the perceived market value. In the event that you wish to make a sale and are willing to lower the price, then you take into account the current potential customer and what they can afford. But that is only if you NEED to sell.”
Of course everybody is free to price his domain the way he/she wants, and asset bubbles are cyclical in history so nothing new under the sun …
And I never said that you have to “price the goods to meet the customers needs”, but according to targeted end-users features (if we are talking about end users, because investors or developers are a different thing), which is a different thing. I think it’s not hard to understand …
That said, your last statement is a nonsense, since you are not gonna sell if the pricing is not some way compatible with the potential buyer business size and profitability, among main factors.
Sure, you can quote a price for not selling … lol … but if you have a fixed price you won’t sell until and only if/when you meet the buyer with the right features … willy-nilly … and sometimes you will have also to adjust your price to close a deal, as you are admitting. Those are called negotiations …
Valuations are per se complex in nature and may depend on many variables, so your liquidating this matter with the expression “perceived market value” is typical of who has no or very little knowledge of how asset valuation works.
That’s nice dear.
Perhaps you may want to consider your own rants if your going to accuse others of ranting because all it does is bring into question your level of maturity.
As for why the “JaneDoe” moniker, feel free to read your own post, I for one choose to avoid providing trolls the freedom to offer to bend me over and **** me till I bleed (The joys of the internet and little boys trying to compensate for their…short comings) where ever possible, the last guy tracking me down was shall we say, educational.
Cheers boys
Never a god, just speaking as an atom who looks at data in terms of probability.
Mr atom, then next time have a look to underlying businesses and their profitability … instead of focusing only on your “data probability” … data? which data? you mentioned none … and probability can be a very abstract concept if not used together with tangible business figures, micro and macro data, etc …
Otherwise it’s just the festival of vagueness and guessing … 😀
That said, I think TableForTwo.com is a great brandable, no doubt, I’m not questioning the domain quality.
But you need to be “adaptive” to find the suitable buyer 😉
Data – Frank Schilling’s Name Administration past sales record
@ vendita auto: I mean company data, business profitability data, not domain sales data, read above …
@guy (another anonymous guy … lol): maybe you should read the posts before commenting. Secondly, nothing to do with Ego here, rather I see a lot of adulating and adorating people … and that’s not me.
FYI we still have the right to express our view, but maybe democracy is not a concept living in your mind … that’s more than pathetic, that’s very sad for our society as a whole.
I’ve nothing personal against Frank, so maybe you should start respecting other people opinions, instead of just acting like a silly adulator. What a pathetic category that of adulators, they really have no dignity …
You’re the kind of person that loves to voice their opinion, because their ego is so huge that they think they are the only one that knows anything. Do this test next time you are speaking in a group, leave then turn around 20 seconds later. You will notice that everyone is looking at you and laughing at you. This is because you have a server lack of intelligence, but are completely unaware of it. Your ego is so huge that you think you are the only one that knows how to price a domain. Anyone who disagrees with your price must not be smarter than you right? So, you have to tell them right away what the price should be right? But a las everything people are telling you will go in one ear and out the other, because your ego has you so delusional that you must me right.
“Your ego is so huge that you think you are the only one that knows how to price a domain. ”
Expressing our own view doesn’t mean having a big ego, maybe you should check what the word “ego” means.
I never said that and I don’t think that, everyone can obviously have his/her opinion on this, so your words are totally out of place.
“Anyone who disagrees with your price must not be smarter than you right? ”
Anyone is free to disagree with my view. It’s just my view, as I often say. Unlike you, I can disagree with someone else opinion, but I respect it and I don’t offend people. I think we have different values and a different idea about what education is.
And unlike you I always put my face when I express my views, mr anonymous guy … maybe you should get a life and stop acting as a trolling cheerleader of someone else …
I’m out with this. 🙂
I only paste & copied “Frank Schilling’s Name Administration” from the top of the post text. Only replying this time as your comments are amusing. but enough, I concede, you are totally right and I apologise for stretching your intellect.