Palace Sports & Entertainment LLC of Auburn Hills, Michigan, lost its bid to grab the domain name Palace.com away from the domain holders Palace Enterprises, NV of New York, which was represented by David Lin of Lewis & Lin, LLC.
However the panel failed to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking which it should have found in our opinion as all the elements were present. A generic domain, a dictionary word,, the lack of a direct match trademark, lack of evidence of a common law mark, a 20 year old domain that was legitimately used by the domain holder and the lack of bad faith by the domain holder
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the three member panel
The Complainant owns a U.S. federal trademark registration the palace of Auburn Hills but did not own a federal trademark on just the term “Palace”
“”According to the publicly available WhoIs database, the palace.com Domain Name was created on July 16, 1993; it does not currently lead to an active website.
The declaration of Respondent’s president states he acquired the Domain Name in December 2008 – several years prior to its receipt of the Complaint – through another entity with the intention of using it in connection with an online casino.
Shortly thereafter, Respondent’s president engaged in preliminary activities including: designing a logo and creating an initial home page to which the Domain Name resolved. The initial page stated:
“The very best in online gaming is coming to Palace.com. We have all your favorite new and classic “table games, and slots for free or cash.Sign up today for membership information!”
He also planned a search engine optimization strategy, took steps to implement use of Google Analytics for the site, and later posted a different “Coming Soon” message on the site.
In June 2009, the Domain Name was transferred to Respondent, a corporation organized in Curacao, one of the oldest and most politically stable providers of regulated e-gaming licenses.
Respondent subsequently entered into an agreement for development of computer software for the site, opened a corporate bank account with an e-commerce payment company, and entered into an agreement for co-location and bandwidth.
Sometime in August 2011, Respondent decided to delay launch of its site upon learning that the U.S. might legalize online gambling;
Respondent is currently awaiting developments.…
