Business Magazine

Horrible UDRP Ruling; No Trademark; No Bad Faith & No RDNH On 14 Year Old Domain

Posted on the 02 April 2013 by Worldwide @thedomains

A one person UDRP panel rejected the attempt of the The Restored Church of God of Wadsworth, Ohio, to steal the domain name from Alexa Properties, LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada.

But the bigger story is the panel failed to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) despite the panelist couldn’t even attempt to utter the grounds for which she did not issue a RDNH finding.

For one the complainant didn’t have a registered trademark, but alleged a common law trademark to the term “RT”

Second the common law mark at best went back to 2003 while the domain name was registered since 1998.

Third the panel didn’t even address the issue of bad faith finding that the Church failed to present any evidence that it had a common law trademark in the generic term “RT”.

While the sole panelist Harrie R. Samaras spent the entire opinion chatting about how the complainant didn’t have a trademark, even if they did had a trademark it would have been 5 years after the domain was registered and assailed the Church for not presenting an evidence of its trademark or bad faith, when it came to the issue of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking she simply concluded by stating:

“In any event, based on the available record, the Panel sees insufficient basis on balance to conclude that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and accordingly declines to make a finding here of reverse domain name hijacking”


Has this panelist ever made a RDNH ruling?

If she didn’t make it here, I’m not sure what it going to take for her to make a finding.

If a panelist refuses to find RDNH in any case they should not be allowed to hear cases.

Here are the relevant facts and findings:

“Complainant claims common law rights in RT (“the alleged RT Mark”) through commercial use in association with “The Real Truth Magazine” (“the Magazine”) that it publishes monthly.”

“To establish common law rights as a trademark in the alleged RT Mark, Complainant must show the Mark acquired secondary meaning, that the public associates the asserted mark with Complainant’s goods or services. ”

On the record here, the Panel agrees with Respondent, Complainant has not shown any rights in the alleged RT Mark.”

“To begin with, Complainant failed to provide the Panel with any evidence of its use of the alleged RT Mark for even a small amount of time, let alone a time sufficient to establish common law rights.”

Complainant’s assertion of common law rights is based on bald assertions that the Mark has been in “commercial use, in association with The Real Truth Magazine and that “The Real Truth” has been in circulation and used the “RT” mark throughout the U.S.…

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog