Business Magazine

15 Year Old Domain Saved In UDRP

Posted on the 30 December 2015 by Worldwide @thedomains

The Trimount Company, Inc DBA StinkySocks Hockey (“Complainant”), of Massachusetts, just lost its attempt to grab the domain name
in a UDRP rather than just pay the domain holder the $6,500 he was asking for the domain.

The domain was registered on February 2, 2000.

The Complainant trademark was registered over 15 years later on September 22, 2015 and at that the trademark was for the term “STINKYSOCKS HOCKEY”

Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. was the sole Panelist who rules in favor of the domain holder but did not discuss Reverse Domain Name Hijacking nor even all elements of the UDRP. Basically a lazy panelist in my opinion.

The domain holder did not file a response.

Here are the highlights of the very short opinion

“The Panel recalls that the registration date for the domain name is February 2, 2000, which predates the date on which Complainant acquired registered rights in the mark (Reg. No. 4,815,524, registered September 22, 2015). Further, Complainant claims that its first use of the mark STINKYSOCKS HOCKEY occurred in 2006. As such, it does not appear that Complainant’s trademark was ever in use when the disputed domain name was registered.

The Panel observes a general view of the UDRP panels that although a trademark can form a basis for a UDRP action under the first element irrespective of its date, when a domain name is registered by the respondent before the complainant’s relied-upon trademark right is shown to have been first established, the registration of the domain name would not have been in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s then non-existent right.

Therefore, the Panel determines that Complainant failed to establish Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith and concludes that Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

As the Panel concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the Panel declines to analyze the other element of the Policy.

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED”

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog