A one person UDRP panel just denied the Alcohol Monitoring System, Inc attempted grab of the generic domain name Scram.com
While the Complainant owned registered Trademarks for SCRAM and SCRAMx with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 2,902,677), registered November 16, 2004 (“the Trademark”) the panel found that the term was generic and the domain holder didn’t act in bad faith in registering the domain name.
The domain name was acquired by the domain holder for $6,000 in January 2007 and the domain holder rejected a $40,000 offer from the Complainant.
However the panel failed to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) although I think the panel easily could have.
Here are the relevant facts and findings:
“”The Complainant Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. is an American company, specializing in the monitoring of alcohol offenders via the SCRAMnet software processes.
SCRAM is the acronym for “Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor” for the alcohol monitoring program that the Complainant markets and claims to manage in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia. This claim is however contradicted with respect to the UK, since the Complainant declares in its Complaint that it intends to do business in the UK.
Both SCRAM and SCRAMx are registered US trademarks of the Complainant. The Complainant has provided documentary evidence to this effect and is not opposed by the Respondent.
The Complainant also provided evidence that the Domain Name is currently actively listed on a Domain Name Auction site.
The Respondent Peter Stranney is the sole owner of the business and Domain Name and located in the UK. The Respondent has experience in web development and online marketing.
In January 2007, the Respondent acquired the Domain Name for US$6,000.
Annex 4 reveals that there was a telephone discussion between the parties in January 2013 for the transfer of the Domain Name where the Complainant invited the Respondent to make an offer.
The Respondent offered to transfer the Domain Name for the amount of US$40,000.
This offer was rejected by the Complainant. The Complainant ended the negotiations by communicating to the Respondent that it would file the present Complaint.
For the reasons that follow, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s claim is denied. Specifically, the Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and ¶ 4(a)(iii).
“The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).…
