The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center, in a one member UDRP decision rejected the attempt of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council to grab the generic domain name ALMC.com
The domain holder was represented by David E. Weslow of Wiley Rein LLP.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the one member panel:
The Complainant is a statutory body corporate in Hong Kong, established in 1966 pursuant to the Hong Kong Trade Development Council Ordinance
Its functions include the promotion and development of Hong Kong’s trade.
The Complainant currently owns two trademarks. One trademark consisted of a “ALMC” logo together with the words “Asian Logistics and Maritime Conference” and its Chinese counterpart translation ” ¥HI ¥.m.&AA:il-t” “, and was registered on 17 April 2013 (the “First Trademark”).
The other trademark, which was pending registration at the time this dispute arose, subsequently became registered on 21 August 2013, and consisted ofthe letters “almc” and “ALMC” (the “Second Trademark”, and together with the First Trademark, the “Trademarks”).
The Respondent is a Canadian company engaged in the business of registering short generic non-trademark domain names and it profits by selling or renting such domain names. Correspondence between the parties indicated that the Respondent purchased the Disputed Domain Name by way of auction on 18 September 2012.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 15th 2012.
The Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name and its underlying website to offer to sell or lease domain names constitute legitimate use under the Policy.
There is nothing in the Policy or in current ICANN registrar registration agreements which prohibits the registration of domain names incorporating common words, generic terms, short terms, and useful phrases for the purpose of paid advertising.
The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has not satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
While it is not necessary for the Panel to discuss the Complaint further, the Panel would also note that the Respondent has not acted in bad faith when registering or using the Disputed Domain Name.
The registration of the Disputed Domain Name predates the registration of the Trademarks and considering that the Disputed Domain Name is generic, therefore the question of bad faith registration must be answered negatively.
While registering a domain name for the purpose of selling or renting it may be a legitimate business, it would be considered bad faith under paragrapgh 4(b)(i) ofthe Policy if the primary purpose was to sell or rent it to the trademark owner.…
