White Castle just lost case under the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy for the domain name WhiteCastle.Space and the domain holder didn’t even respond.
The Examiner although recognized that WHITE CASTLE has trademark rights in the United States long before the domain holder registered the domain name on October 27, 2016.
However the domain name at issues is “used to redirect to some kind of blog containing political views”.
While Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered WHITE CASTLE trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as WHITE CASTLE or under the disputed domain name. However, Examiner notes that the dominant word elements of the Complainant are descriptive. Examiner considers that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based on the appeal of commonly used descriptive or dictionary terms, in the absence of circumstances indicating that the respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit the complainant’s trademark
The Complainant does not provide clear and convincing evidence indicating that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for commercial purposes and does not refer to the Complainant or its business on the website linked to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the domain name on September 18, 2014 in light of being put on notice that they were attempting to register a second-level domain encompassing a registered trademark. However, Examiner notes that the disputed domain name was registered on October 27, 2016. Moreover, the Complainant does not provide evidence of any notice sent to the Respondent.
Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has not been proven.
Given Examiner’s finding on the issue of rights and legitimate interests, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of bad faith registration or use. However, Examiner considered the issue, and finds that no bad faith is shown. Examiner considers that Respondent was at liberty to register the disputed domain name as a common term. There is no evidence that in making the registration the Respondent targeted the Complainant or Complainant’s trademark.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
This ruling is just crazy! Everyone knows that White Castle is a burger joint, and may I say, a good one. Long established trademarks need to be protected. All trademarks need to be protected. if not, why go to the trouble of trademarking, if you can’t protect it? IMHO
Well IF (and I don’t think it is) this is a bad decision THEN it makes up for the hundreds of other Bad ones that went against the Respondent’s . Secondly and more importantly, there is NOT one Trade Mark that grants a Worldwide Monopoly on any word for EVER Class of Goods and Services . IN fact in Europe that would be classed as anti competitive and against law.
“Every” typo
Never heard of White Castle being a burger joint, or if I did, it certainly never stuck so there goes your opening statement that everyone knows it is a burger joint (as I am typing this, I have a nagging feeling it has something to do with cake mix purchased in a supermarket)
“Everyone knows that White Castle is a burger joint”
Er, just no. I have never heard of White Castle burger joints so you are starting from a fatally flawed point of view.
Even if I had heard of them, to suggest that someone can trademark a two word phrase and then no-one else in the entire world can ever use those two words for any other purpose is utterly crazy. Absolutely yes if White Castle is a existing trademarked burger joint then no-one else should be allowed to use the same or similar words for another burger joint. However if I want to start building and selling white castles in Las Vegas then there should be no reason whatsoever why I couldn’t use the White Castle name.
This ruling is PERFECT ! Everyone knows that White Castle is a burger joint, but whitecastle.space was not used to offer a burger, it is so generic. YES! All trademarks need to be protected, but taking someone else’s asset (domain name) just because you have a treading mark on the descriptive word is inhuman. HUMAN RIGHTS MOST BE PROTECTED FIRST.
Speaking of .Space, I owned Pentagon.Space for a year, let it expire deciding not to renew, now the domain is Registry Reserved, no longer available for registration.
Somewhat intriguing what the reason(s) might be, strategic or otherwise…
Hmm what could the respondent have possibly been thinking when he registered WhiteCastle . space ? *rolls eyes*. Examiner guy is a jackass.
you are making assumptions. assumptions are personal opinions, not facts.
There’s a town in Louisiana called White Castle. You can open a car dealership there and register WhiteCastle.Auto
But if you register RedBull.Space you better own a red bull and put a picture of it on the home page, because there is no town named Red Bull.