A WIPO rejected Johnson & Johnson UDRP claim on the domain name Johnsons.com
The domain holder was represented by Karen J. Bernstein.
The domain name has been owned by the domain holder since November 12, 2006.
Not only did the three member panel not find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking but one panelist, Peter Rindforth dissented with this majority finding that the domain name was registered in bad faith, although he agreed with the majority that the domain name was not used in bad faith.
The panel did not even mention the fact that “Johnson” is the second most common surname in the US
The panel also did not cite Laches on a domain name that is now 17 years old.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the three member panel:
The Complainant is Johnson & Johnson, a New Jersey company specialized in the field of personal care products, especially for babies and children since 1894. The Complainant owns numerous national and international trademark registrations worldwide, including JOHNSON’S. The JOHNSON’S mark has been registered since as early as August 27, 1912
The Domain Name has already been the issue of a UDRP proceeding, namely Johnson & Johnsons v. Tomato Pages Website Production Services, NAF Claim No. 162058. Both the Complainant and the Respondent have referred to the said case in their argumentation and asked the Panel to consider the previous case as part of the evidence and background for the Decision in the present dispute.
Further, the Respondent states that this proceeding is res judicataA “Re-filed Complaint” within the scope of the Policy, is where the same complainant files a complaint against the same respondent and regarding the same domain name as in a previously decided complaint. As discussed in several previous UDRP cases, (i.e. Grove Broadcasting Co. Ltd.v. Telesystems Communications Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-0703; Creo Products Inc.v. Website In Development, WIPO Case No. D2000-1490; AB Svenska Spel v. Andrey Zacharov, WIPO Case No. D2003-0527) re-filing may only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
As stated by the panel in Creo Products Inc. v. Website In Development, WIPO Case No. D2000-1490 “in determining the circumstances in which Refiled Complaints should be entertained under the Uniform Policy, a distinction should be drawn between (i) Refiled Complaints that concern the act which formed the basis of the original complaint, and (ii) Refiled Complaints that concern acts which have occurred subsequent to the decision on the original complaint.” For the first type, acceptance of Re-filed Complaints should be exceptional.…
