Business Magazine

17 Year Old Saved in UDRP

Posted on the 05 February 2014 by Worldwide @thedomains

Vernet, of Ollainville , France , just lost its bid to get the domain name in a UDRP which was registered back on April 9, 1997

The UDRP decision was handed down in French.

Here are the facts and findings by the one member panel:

The Complainant is the company Vernet , a French company specializing in the production and trade of motor vehicles and health equipment and heating equipment parts.

The Applicant operates the name Vernet as name and brand for decades.

He also holds several made ​​or composed of the name Vernet , including brands:

- Semi -figurative METHODS Vernet French brand , filed on 11 April 1991 under number 1655118 and registered for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12;

- French word mark Vernet , filed June 21, 2000 , under No. 3036983 and registered for goods in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 12;

- Community word mark Vernet , filed December 28, 2006 , under No. 5620661 and registered for goods in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 12;

- International word mark Vernet , filed Nov. 14, 2000 , under No. 759828 and registered for goods in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 12.

The Applicant presents its activities and its range of products over the Internet via an Internet accessible from the domain name <> site.

The Respondent is Mr. Thierry Ehrman , founder ARTPRICE , international leader in the market quotation of the art on the Internet.

At the date of this decision, the disputed domain name returns a deep hyperlink to a page of the website ” ” devoted to the painter Joseph Vernet.

After becoming aware of the existence of this domain name, the Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent .

August 23, 2010, and through its Council on Industrial Property , the Applicant has in fact sought to examine the possibility and conditions of a possible transfer of the disputed domain name .

November 10, 2010, an employee of the Respondent acknowledged receipt of this message and invited the Applicant to approach another person, direct contact with the Respondent .

However, despite an e-mail to that effect, the same day, and two reminders dated 15 February 2011 and 28 April 2011 , the Respondent has never deigned to respond to the Applicant despite the financial proposal submitted to it .

The Applicant has revived the Respondent , October 22, 2012 , explaining the covered by the disputed domain name major and asking him to please give him , that the Respondent has expressly refused .…

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog