Vertical Axis Inc. which was represented by Ari Goldberger of Esqwire.com, just beat back a UDRP on the domain name Mclarin.com.
The complaint was filed by McLaren Health Care Corporation which won all 11 previously filed UDRP cases including 10 it won so far in 2013 after getting a registered trademark back in October 2012.
The domain name was registered November 26, 2001.
“”Respondent points out that it registered the disputed domain name, <mclarin.com>, on November 26, 2001, and contends that it did so because mclarin.com is comprised solely of a common Irish last name, “McLarin.” Respondent indicates that it has registered thousands of generic dictionary and common word domain names, three and four letter domain names, and common surnames as domain names. Respondent hosts underdeveloped domain names with domain name parking services that pay a share of the advertising revenue they generate, which, according to Respondent, is “an industry-wide accepted practice.” Respondent emphasizes that it does not have any links related to Complainant or its business on its website. “The links are auto-generated by Google and are constantly changing based on Google’s keyword advertising inventory and user search behavior.”
“According to the Declaration of Leandra Wilfred-Boyce, the director of finance and operations for Vertical Axis, Inc., Respondent did not register the domain name with Complainant’s trademark in mind and had no knowledge of Complainant when it purchased the domain name at auction 12 years ago. Respondent contends that 12 years represents “a substantial delay by any measure and an eternity in `Internet time’,” and that such delay bars the complaint under the doctrine of laches.
“Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the McLAREN mark. The mark and domain name, it points out, are different common Irish last names and consumers would understand that common last names like McLaren and McLarin are not the same.”
“The Panel concludes that Complainant has not met its burden of establishing that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Indeed, Complainant seems to have conceded this point by noting, in both its Complaint and Additional Submission, that it has no objection to the registration of the domain name, only its use. However, the Policy requires both bad faith registration and use.”
“Even without this admission, however, the Panel finds the evidence wanting on the issue of bad faith registration and use.…
