Rive, LLC lost its bid to take away the domain name Rive.com from the domain owner who registered it back in 2004, based on a trademark registered with the USPTO, on August 23, 2011
The Complainant argued that the domain owner registered and used the domain name in bad faith, “because Respondent attempted to sell the domain name for $45,500, fails to make an active use of the domain name, and owns at least 25 domain names that demonstrate Respondent is a cybersquatter”.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the three member panel:
Complainant stipulates that although Respondent originally registered the disputed domain name in 2004,Respondent then renewed the domain name registration on May 23, 2012, and although registration renewal is not “registration” for determining bad faith, previous panels have nonetheless recognized the harshness of the rule and have concluded that renewal may be considered registration when making a determination of bad faith.
Respondent admits that while no active website is associated with the <rive.com> domain name, same has been “leveraged as an e-mail service and has [been] used extensively in professional and personal correspondences.” Respondent submits its Annexes D1, D2, and D3, showing an e-mail inbox originating from the domain name.
The Panel determines that Respondent makes a satisfactory showing that it uses the disputed domain name in relation to its e-mail, and finds that linking a domain name to an e-mail address demonstrates a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
“Respondent claims that it has a business based on creating and selling domain names to the highest bidder, which Respondent argues constitutes a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, so long as the registration was not undertaken with intent to profit or otherwise abuse a complainant’s trademark rights. ”
Previous panels have found that the holding of a domain name for resale can in some circumstances constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods and services.
This Panel similarly determines that Respondent in this case makes a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy¶ 4(c)(iii), as Respondent may be considered a generic domain name reseller operating a business.
Further, that Respondent could not have possibly targeted the Complainant since the Complainant did not exist at the time of the registration of the domain name.…
