TOGU Gebruder Obermaier oHG of Prien-Bachham, Germany, just lost a UDRP on the domain name Togu.com.
The domain owner Port Media Domains was represented by Esquire.com
Its not clear to me why the panel did not find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) as the domain name is 13 years old, and was registered prior to the Complainants trademark registration.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the panel
“Complainant is a German company that also operates in the United States of America in the field of supplying products that it describes as “toys, sport balls and exercise and training devices, and also with medical devices designed for therapy and rehabilitation”.
Complainant’s business originated in Germany. It has two United States trademarks for TOGU which were applied for on April 19, 2000 and registered on September 3, 2002, both of which dates are later than the acquisition of the disputed domain name which occurred on March 7, 2000.
Respondent Port Media Domains is a Hong Kong company whose business is to acquire domain names and develop or sell them to other entities.
Since it acquired the disputed domain name it has been used in general for links to goods and services of a general nature.
The three member panel found there was no bad faith on the part of the domain holder:
“Respondent has submitted and tendered evidence that its business is the registration of generic and descriptive common word and 2, 3, and 4 letter domain names, their commercial development and then the possible reselling of those names because they are attractive commercial propositions.
Moreover, Respondent’s submission and evidence is to the effect that this is what it was doing with respect to the disputed domain name and that it accounts for the advertising links on its website.
In the Panel’s view, Respondent’s activity in this regard is legitimate and lawful provided that it does not target or trade off Complainant’s trademark or engage in any other inappropriate conduct.
In the present case, there is no evidence that Respondent was either attempting to take part in or did take part in an abusive registration of the disputed domain name.
Not only is there a distinct lack of evidence to that effect but the history of events is such that it would have been difficult if not impossible for Respondent to engage in such an abusive registration even if it had been so inclined.…
