The owner of a trademark on Ovation Hair, DC Labs Inc. was awarded the generic domain name Ovation.com by a one member panel although the term Ovation is a generic term and the trademark OVATION HAIR was not granted by the USPTO until 4 years after the domain name Ovation.com was acquired by the domain holder
Of course the trademark was for a broader term than the domain name itself.
Its a horrible decision in which the one one member panel of Eduardo Machado found a common law trademark to the term “Ovation” and seemed to put great weight on the fact that the domain holder owned a whopping 107 domain names.
Here are the relevant facts and findings:
Complainant DC Labs Inc. is engaged in producing, selling, and distributing hair care products.
Complainant has been in business since 2007 and operates the website at the ovationhair.com domain name.
Complainant owns several U.S. and international trademarks for its OVATION marks, including OVATION. Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,142,800 filed November 10, 2011, registered May 15, 2012).
Complainant uses the OVATION mark at its website to advertise its goods and to indicate to the public that the goods are provided by Complainant. As a consequence of Complainant’s prolific use of the mark, the OVATION name has attained considerable value and goodwill.
Respondent purchased the <ovation.com> domain name on December 24, 2008, and uses the resolving website to allow an Internet entity to operate a “parked domain monetization”.
Respondent has yet to establish a legitimate website at the domain name, yet Respondent wallpapers the website with the registered OVATION marks.
The monetized links allow a visitor to click on the headings at the top of the site, which results in advertisements appearing as additional pages, none of which have any affiliation with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s activities unlawfully encroach upon Complainant’s rights by generating advertising revenue off of the goodwill created by Complainant’s marks. Respondent intentionally attracts Internet traffic to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, in order to increase its revenue.
Further, Respondent had full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OVATION mark, and deliberately chose the mark in order to deceive members of the relevant public
Complainant is a United States corporation that is engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of hair care products and has been in business in that field since 2007
Complainant is the owner of the OVATION HAIR mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg.…
COMMENTS ( 1 )
posted on 05 December at 03:41
Nice answer bachk in return of this issue with real arguments and describing thee whole thing regarding that.