Orbitz Worldwide, LLC which was represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., just lost a UDRP on the domain name Obotz.com a domain which has been parked for the last five years.
How could a UDRP panel reject the claim of Orbitz you ask well the domain holder registered the domain back in 2001 “with the intention of developing a series of stories about robots called “Orbotz” on a planet in outer space.”
“Respondent claims to have legitimate rights and interests in the Disputed Domain Name based on the intent to use the “Orbotz” name in stories about robots in outer space.
While preparations for use do generate legitimate rights and interests, in the over twelve years since it was registered, the Disputed Domain Name has never been used for this purpose.
Instead, after seven years of inactivity on the “Orbotz” story project, Respondent used a parking service that in turn used the Disputed Domain Name to host hyperlinks to third party websites.
The Disputed Domain Name has been used for this purpose for the past five years.
Using a domain name to offer hyperlink advertisements is not a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
Respondent’s explanation for its intended use of the Domain Name has some plausibility, and accordingly the question is a close one, but on balance, and particularly given the extended period of inactivity on the “Orbotz” project and the usage of a parking service during that time, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 23, 2001, less than two months after Complainant’s ORBITZ mark was first used in commerce.
While Complainant’s rights in the mark extend to the date the registration was filed, that does not mean it is reasonable to assume Respondent was aware of the mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant presents no evidence to suggest that Respondent was aware of the mark at that time.
Nonetheless, Complainant relies on the theory that Respondent is “typosquatting” and alleges a pattern of this behavior by citing other domains registered to Respondent.
Respondent presents ample evidence that the registration was not made in bad faith and that it was not in fact “typosquatting.”
Respondent contends that it registered <orbotz.com> with the intention of developing a series of stories about robots called “Orbotz” on a planet in outer space.…
