Business Magazine

Phaseeight.com Saved in UDRP But No RDNH Because Domain Was Parked

Posted on the 05 March 2013 by Worldwide @thedomains

Phase Eight (Fashion & Designs) Limited of London, just lost its bid to get the domain name phaseeight.com through a UDRP.

Unlike the case we discussed yesterday, this panel was most concerned that nine years had passed from the date of registration to the date of the complaint.

The panel refused to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) based on the fact that the domain was parked and registered under privacy.

Here are the relevant facts and findings by the one member panel:

The Complainant is a United Kingdom corporation with its principal office in London, United Kingdom. First established in 1979 (and under its present name in 1983), the Complainant is involved in the production and retail sales, both in its own branded stores and in boutiques located in third-party stores, of clothes, handbags, jewelry and hats.

The Complainant has held trademark registrations for PHASE EIGHT (the “PHASE EIGHT Mark”) internationally, including the United States, the location of the Respondent. The PHASE EIGHT Mark was first registered as a Community Trade Mark on June 7, 1999, and was applied for and registered in the United States on March 7, 2008, and January 20, 2009, respectively.

The Complainant also maintains an official website at “www.phase-eight.co.uk”. The Complainant also has numerous stores located in the United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland and Switzerland.

 

The Domain Name <phaseeight.com> was registered on April 10, 2004.

The Domain Name redirects to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) that consists of a series of links to third party sites with titles such as “Dresses”, “Women Clothing Stores” and “Ladies Fashion”. Such websites are normally operated on a pay-per-click basis.

 

“The Domain Name has been registered for almost 9 years.

“The longer the time a disputed domain name has been registered, the more difficult it is for a complainant to prove bad faith registration”

“There was no explanation for Complainant’s delay in filing the Complaint. Although the Panel’s decision in this case that Complainant has failed to establish bad faith registration does not rest simply on the passage of time between registration of the Domain Name and Complainant’s assertion of its rights, it is a fact that the Panel cannot ignore”.

 

“There is no evidence that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names (including the Domain Name) to prevent trademark owners from registering a corresponding domain name.”

“There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever registered a domain name other than the Domain Name.…


You Might Also Like :

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog

These articles might interest you :

Magazines