The Music Zoo Corporation whose website is TheMusicZoo.com just lost a UDRP on the domain name MusicZoo.com which was registered way back in December 8, 1998.
The Complainant, had a trademark for both MUSIC ZOO and THE MUSIC ZOO however the trademark for the MUSIC ZOO wasn’t filed until October 7, 2010, & registered November 8, 2011 and for the THE MUSIC ZOO which was filed October 7, 2010, & registered November 8, 2011.
Its another case that cries out for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking but for some reason the panel not only didn’t make a RDNH finding but didn’t even discuss the issue
“The Complainant has failed to provide evidence of the extent of its use of the MUSIC ZOO or THE MUSIC ZOO marks in commerce outside of Complainant’s USPTO registrations, including evidence supporting the assertion that Complainant has made continuous use of the marks dating back to 1994. In view of this, the Panel does not find that Complainant has established common law rights in the MUSIC ZOO or the THE MUSIC ZOO mark dating back to 1994 for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respectively, Complainant holds rights to the trademarks MUSIC ZOO and the THE MUSIC ZOO, dating back to October 7, 2010.
he submitted evidence shows that Respondent registered the name <musiczoo.com> on December 8, 1998, namely more than ten years prior to the date on which Complainant’s trademarks were applied for registration, in conjunction with the website he was involved in creating in 1998 named <outletzoo.com>. Respondent asserts that it has used the domain name in connection with several other zoo names: <outletzoo.com>, <pczoo.com>, and <softwarezoo.com>, among others, which were part of a business plan dated January 1999 outlining the plans for the <outletzoo.com> name.
Respondent argues that its other zoo domain names have survived approximately 15 years and have become pay-per-click domains while Respondent fine tunes the new business plan of <musiczoo.com>.
The Panel thus finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods and services.
Complainant has not established a prima facie case in support of its arguments that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Moreover, the date of registration of the domain and the subsequent registration of the trademarks does not warrant a finding of bad faith registration under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).…
