Business Magazine Saved in UDRP By Ari Goldberger

Posted on the 07 March 2013 by Worldwide @thedomains

The California Milk Processor which has a trademark on the term “got milk”  lost its bid to get the adult domain name, as the majority of three member panel found that the domain is not confusingly similar to the trademark.

If you don’t know what the term Milf means, I will go with the definition the panel found:

“A MILF may be defined as a mother – not one’s own, for there does not appear to be any Oedipal connotation – with whom one would fancy a carnal encounter.”

The domain holder was represented by

Here are the relevant facts and findings by the panel:

Respondent registered the Domain Name on December 15, 2010, acquiring it from a prior owner.

The Domain Name had been registered to several previous parties in succession going back to March 2000.

For a period of time, Respondent’s website accessible via the Domain Name contained sponsored links to various websites. For example, on September 11, 2012, some of the links included: “Meet Gay Men for Sex Now,” “Hot Sex is Here,” “Watch Adult Cams Free 18+,” and “Free Gay Men Videos.”

Complainant sent Respondent an e-mail dated September 11, 2012, in which Complainant alleged that the Domain Name and its use were in violation of Complainant’s trademark rights.

Shortly thereafter, the content of Respondent’s website changed. By the time of Complainant’s October 5, 2012, follow-up letter, the website simply stated: “What’s a M.I.L.F.? – Coming soon!” It does not appear that Respondent communicated with Complainant prior to the filing of the Complaint in this proceeding.

“According to Respondent, there had been communications between the parties a year earlier, in September 2011, during which Respondent disputed Complainant’s contentions and after which a year passed with no further written word from Complainant. The record does not contain these alleged written communications from September 2011. Respondent claims that there were a few telephone conversations after the September 2011 exchanges.”

“There is no doubt that Complainant holds rights, through registration and use, in the mark GOT MILK? It is also beyond doubt that the Domain Name is not identical to the mark.”

“The question at the heart of this dispute is whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.”

The Panel majority concludes that the Domain Name <> is not confusingly similar to the mark GOT MILK? While the two are doubtless similar, they are not, in the Panel majority’s view, confusingly so.…

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog