Business Magazine

7 Year Old Saved In UDRP

Posted on the 05 February 2014 by Worldwide @thedomains

Hedera AB of Lund, Sweden, just lost its bid to grab the domain name in a UDRP which was registered back on November 24, 2007.

The Panel basically threw the Complainants case out and only failed to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because they believed the owner of the domain changed in 2011.

The domain holder also filed a lawsuit in federal court to get a declaratory judgment once the UDRP was filed.

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

The Complainant is a Swedish company which states that it has introduced a patented, self-stabilizing table base for all kinds of tables in hotels, restaurants, bars and cafés.

The said table base, branded “StableTable”, is said to automatically adjust to any floor surface without the need for manual adjustment.


The Complainant is the owner of a variety of registered trademark rights with regard to the mark STABLETABLE, namely; (1) South African Trademark Registration No. 1997/04925, STABLETABLE (word), filed on April 2, 1997 and registered on August 2, 2001 for goods in class 20;

(2) European Community Trademark Registration No. 008755531, STABLETABLE (figurative), filed on December 14, 2009 and registered August 18, 2010 for goods and services in classes 6, 20 and 45; and

(3) International Trademark Registration No. 1049912, STABLETABLE X (word and device), registered on July 1, 2010 for goods and services in classes 6, 20 and 45 in respect of various designated countries including the USA. The said international mark was registered in the USA on September 27, 2011 with a designation containing the rider “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “STABLETABLE” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN”.


The Respondent states that it, then doing business as “Crosspath”, registered the disputed domain name in good faith on or about November 24, 2007 and that the Respondent ultimately changed its name to Captive Media in 2012. The Respondent therefore maintains that it has retained unbroken ownership and possession of the disputed domain name since the date of its creation.


On November 14, 2008, a representative of the Complainant approached the Respondent by email indicating that it was “looking for a new domain name for a planned new business” and referencing the Complainant’s interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s representative made an offer of $500 to purchase the disputed domain name; however it appears that the Parties were not able to agree on a price and negotiations ceased on about November 18, 2008.…

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog