Recent Posts
- Alibaba, Name.com among new RDRS opt-ins
- .my domains to be sold globally next month
- The Swiss can register .swiss domains from next week
- .ai up to 425,000 domains
- A million “free” .music domains up for grabs
- D3 to get $5 million in crypto to apply for .ape gTLD
- Alibaba hit with ICANN breach notice
- New Vegas conference “Davos for Web3 interoperability”
- ICANN content policing power grab may be dead
- Cable company unplugs its dot-brand after acquisition
- Germany crosses 10,000 dot-brand domains milestone
- Founders out as Com Laude gets equity injection
- PIR’s Diaz to leave domain industry
- Some registrars have already quit ICANN’s Whois experiment
- ICANN opens $217 million Grant Program
- Internet could get one-letter gTLDs (but there’s a catch)
- .ai registry fights deadbeats with tweaked auction rules
- Amazon and Google among .internal TLD ban backers
- .ai registry advises buyers not to use GoDaddy
- .post liberalizes with new sunrise period
- Team Internet spends $41 million on content farm
- Epik backtracks on Kiwi Farms claim after legal threat
- .austin names launch on blockchain
- Freenom shuts down 12.6 million domains — report
- GoDaddy’s next .xxx contract may not be a done deal
- GlobalBlock blocking 2.5 million domains
- Microsoft moving its cloud apps from .com to .microsoft
- ICANN 79: anonymous trolls and undercover lawyers
- ICANN scores win in single-letter .com lawsuit
- Cosmetics brand terminates its gTLD
- Up to 70 jobs on the line at Nominet as .uk regs dwindle
- Governments back down on new gTLD next round delay
- Private auctions could be banned in new gTLD next round
- ICANN meeting venue “insensitive and hurtful”
- GoDaddy to start selling graphic.design domains
- GAC spinning up new gTLD curveball at ICANN 79?
- GoDaddy’s GlobalBlock supports blockchain names
- Police .uk domain takedowns dive in 2023
- GoDaddy wants to cut the bullshit from .xxx
- Dueling domain blocking services to launch at ICANN 79
- Freename tries to bridge DNS and blockchain
- Olive retires from ICANN
- Whois policy published without life-saving disclosure rule
- UK gov takes its lead from ICANN on DNS abuse
- Tucows reports 2023 results
- Twitter “completely unresponsive” on clickable domains
- ICANN spends $5 million more than planned in first fiscal half
- .art takes a million domains off its premium list
- KeyTrap ‘the most devastating vulnerability ever found in DNSSEC’
- Freenom settles $500 million Meta lawsuit and will exit domain business
- New gTLD lottery to return in 2026
- First GlobalBlock prices revealed — they ain’t cheap
- Domain universe grows on new gTLDs despite .com shrinkage
- D3 signs up crypto gTLD client number five
- GoDaddy reports strong domains growth
- How to qualify for a $40,000 gTLD
- Registry service provider evaluation handbook published
- WebUnited inks deal to “mirror” country’s TLD in the blockchain
- GoDaddy project unveils brand-blocking calculator
- Report: Monster “misappropriated” millions from Epik
- .com is shrinking but Verisign raises prices again anyway
- D3 announces fourth crypto new gTLD client
- Donald Trump loses second UDRP case
- UK cybersquatting complaints hit record low
- No excuses! PIR to pay for ALL registries to tackle child abuse
- ICANN insists it is working on linkification
- Namecheap sues ICANN over .org price caps
- GoDaddy offers free Ethereum blockchain integration
- Epik reveals who is running the company
- Epik gets acquired again! The plot thickens…
- Airline gTLD crashes and burns
- First chunks of new gTLD Applicant Guidebook drop
- Epik to reveal its owners soon
- Another crypto firm to apply for a new gTLD
- Monster and Royce are NOT involved in Epik?!
- Nominet to overhaul .uk registry, turn off some services
- Russia blames DNSSEC, not Ukraine, for internet downtime
- Team Internet says revenue beat estimates
- Sold for over $20k, insure.ai and dog.ai back in .ai’s expired names auction
- .ai helps UDRP cases rise in 2023, WIPO says
- Freenom’s domains land at Gandi after termination
- .ru domains fly off the shelf as Western sanctions bite
- ICANN picks its first ever Supreme Court
- Lebanon’s ccTLD going back to Lebanon after ICANN takeover
- ICANN picks the domain it will never, ever release
- ICANN approves domain takedown rules
- Has Epik gone “woke”?
- First bits of new gTLD Applicant Guidebook expected next week
- ICANN bans closed generics for the foreseeable
- You can’t use money to buy .box domains
- After 14 years, ICANN practices what it preaches on IDNs
- Weak demand for private Whois data, ICANN data shows
- .ing doing way better than .meme
- DNS Women barred from ICANN funding?
- Dev releases free open-source TLD registry platform
- INCO flips a gTLD to Identity Digital
- Anguilla fears the .ai junk drop
- Five more gTLDs get launch dates
- $10 million of ICANN cash up for grabs
- Almost 50,000 .ai domains sold in a quarter
- ICANN threatens to regulate your speech [RANT]
- Life insurance company kills dot-brand
- ICANN finds new home for Lebanon’s TLD after founder’s death
- ICANN begs people to use its new Whois service
- Shiba Inu outs itself as crypto new gTLD applicant
- Over 50,000 .ai domains sold in three months
- Amazon planning new push into registrar market?
- Registries and registrars vote ‘Yes’ to new DNS abuse rules
- ICANN predicts flattish 2025 for domain industry
- Fast-growing Gname buys another 150 registrars
- GoDaddy service to let you block domains in over 650 TLDs
- Did I find a murder weapon in a zone file?
- ICANN drops the “man” from Ombudsman
- Have your say on police domain takedown powers
- Most registrars are shunning ICANN’s new Whois system
- Nominet to take over .gov.uk
- ICANN picks Istanbul for 2024 meeting
- ICANN’s private Whois data request service goes live
- .au regs slide on 2LD anniversary
- ICANN accused of power grab over $271 million auction fund
- A registrar is getting blamed for an Israeli war propaganda site
- Two more dot-brands bite the dust
- Google sells five-figure AI domain and six-figure .ing hack
- .blackfriday is still a bit rubbish
- Internet Naming Co acquires five more gTLDs
A UDRP decision to scare the pants off domainers
Is this the most blatant case of UDRP abuse you’ve seen?
A company has won a generic domain name using a trademark it has had registered for less than a year, despite the fact that the current registrant has owned it for well over a decade.
The domain medicalexpo.com was first registered in 1997. It has been in the control of the same registrant since at least 2000, according to historical Whois records, but has never resolved to a web site.
The complainant, Benoit Thiercelin, who has has a history of attempted reverse domain name hijacking, was granted a European trademark on the term “Medical Expo” in June 2010.
In April 2011, Thiercelin filed a UDRP complaint with the little-used ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court, citing its European trademark and a US trademark as proof of its rights.
The US trademark was not fully “registered” until May 3, 2011, a month after the UDRP was filed, according to USPTO records.
On May 15, CAC ruled in his favor and awarded him the domain.
The panelist, Joseph Cannataci, found that the domain was registered “or at least re-registered” in bad faith, simply on the grounds that it had never been used.
If one is in good faith when registering a domain name, then the intention is understandably to use it for the purposes of one’s business or activity. If it remains unused for an unreasonable length of time then such registration is open to accusation of constituting “passive holding”. Irrespective of whether the domain name was registered before or after some of the Complainant’s marks, the current holder of the domain name does not seem to have used it or currently be using it.
The decision goes on to refer to the domain as a “TLD”.
The registrant did not help his cause by not responding to the complaint.
But it beggars belief that a UDRP panelist could infer bad faith registration of a generic domain that was registered 13 years before the complainant first acquired a trademark.
The idea that “re-registration” – presumably the panelist means the domain was renewed at some point after the trademark rights were acquired – could show bad faith does not even hold water.
The domain has been due to expire in 2012 since at least 2008, historical Whois records show. The registrant clearly bought a multi-year registration at some point before then, likely in 2002.
The complainant did not form his Medical Expo company until 2009, and did not file for his trademarks until December 2009 and February 2010. The registrant has not renewed the domain since then.
What we have here is a generic domain name, registered for 14 years, seized by complainant with only recently acquired rights, based on non-use and a flimsy piece of panelist reasoning.
Under other circumstances, it would be a slam-dunk case of reverse domain name hijacking.
In fact, Thiercelin has form when it comes to domain hijacking.
Last year, WIPO ruled that that he had attempted to use UDRP to hijack VirtualExpo.com, which also had been registered 10 years before he acquired his trademark rights.
The case was virtually identical to the MedicalExpo.com case, but the panelist ruled in exactly the opposite way, saying:
In the view of the Panel this is a Complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant knew that the Domain Name was registered nearly 10 years before the Complainant acquired his registered rights, no attempt was made to demonstrate the existence of any earlier rights nor was any attempt made to address the issue arising from the disparity in dates. It simply was not mentioned. Instead, a flagrantly insupportable claim was made as to the Respondent’s bad faith intent at time of registration of the Domain Name and the Panel can only assume that it was hoped that the Panel would miss the point.
Can anybody say “forum shopping”?
This should be enough to scare the pants off of any domainer.
Hi Kevin – I agree with you that this is a very poor decision. However, I think the “expert” here is Joseph Cannataci – whose name is at the bottom of the decision. I think you have incorrectly identified the case worker – Tereza Bartošková – as the panellist.
It looks like the panellist is law professor…
http://www.uclan.ac.uk/schools/lancashire_law_school/clict/jcannataci.php
You are correct, of course. I’ve edited the post accordingly. My apologies to Ms Bartošková.
That’s just about the worst domain arbitration decision I have ever seen.
The owner should have just filed a lawsuit and not partaken in the bogus proceedings they want to call a UDRP.
Benoit Thiercelin sounds like a domain name thief to me.
How sick!
Yeah, uh, that’s pretty nuts. It’s like passive holding makes the third prong just . . . disappear. Poof! Magic!
Benoit sounds like a UDRP trademark rights squatter if you ask me. Maybe some organization genuinely focused in their enterprise should challenge his trade mark(s)(s)… makes you wonder. I’m just hoping the respondent counter sues or at least attempts to do so on the grounds of this obvious reverse domain hijacking case
I’m amazed he was granted a trademark for such a generic as MedicalExpo. The USPTO denied my application for the mark: “SuperSeeder” on the grounds that I was simply describing a seeder (a spreader of seeds) with the adjective “super”. They denied that TM on ground of genericity but they’ll award one to “MedicalExpo”? Wow.
I forgot to mention it in the article, but the US trademark is for the logo, not the words.
Very bad decision. But I don’t see MedicalExpo.com as a generic anyways. Looks more as a brandable.
The registrant really should have responded. I think even by representing himself it would have made a difference on the decision.
I agree with Mike; the registrant should have responded. It may have prevented this decision from tilting in favor of an obvious domain hijacker. However, the panel should have taken very great care to review the complainant’s history in this matter, given the ruling on VirtualExpo.com just last year. This is a situation where, if ever these panels do start paying close, consistent attention to each other, this precedent will be dangerous to domain investors. The reasoning that a person buys a domain for use in some business, without considering that investing may be the business, is a terrifying lapse of judgment on the part of the panelist. This is why the URS should not be adopted, and why the UDRP needs a MAJOR, MAJOR overhaul.
total bullshit…both their knees need to be whacked.
btw – any one know how to reach or find mike cohen of wannadevlope? he took 3500 from me for web development and never did anything and won’t respond to me??
How should the registrant have responded that would have helped his case? Opinions please! I think this is the most important question here.
I just had 5 domains taken from me by Microsoft
Most were 6 yrs. old. One was ten years old.
It was a Catch 22. If I developed the site it was exploitation. If I didn’t and had it parked it was
cyber-squating. I had purchased the domains a year
earlier and just recently renewed. Granted it was
considered Tradename infringement, but what took
them 10 years to take action. The lawyers padded
their bill big time on this one.
“Passive holding”? How insinuating.
I have thousands of domains in line for development, and I am working like mad trying to get them all up and live. It will be the work of years for me.
Now I have to worry about some euro-flake taking my domains because I am not working fast enough.
It is just like the state where I live, North Carolina. Clueless people in positions of just enough power to destroy the whole china shop going for a single tiny shiny bauble.
Not that it’s ever wise to not respond to a UDRP, but it seems like in a lot of UDRP cases, lack of response is almost seen as admission of guilt, when in any legal proceeding, it should NEVER been seen that way.
It’s almost as if some of these panelists look at the complainant’s case and take their word for their rights to the domain because of no response from the respondent, not bothering to look at the law to make a decision.
It’s very unnerving and ICANN needs to take a serious look at this process and more importantly at the people that are supposedly qualified to be panelists but make poor decisions like this one.
The subject domain is categorically *NOT* a conventional generic term …everything that flows from that flawed logic and assumption — inclusive of this very post — is similarly defective. Which is not to say, by any means, that the referenced UDRP decision is not a bad one; only that it must be determined as such on the basis of criteria *OTHER THAN* purported genericity.
I agree that is bad. But I THINK, if they do not overturn it that if you have a website that represents a product you can supply then they would not be able to do this nor even grant the trademark in teh first place.
That is what I am doing anyway nor a new comer to the domain industry. I have a measly 300 websites but I have something on everyone of them in less than 1 year of doing this.
What I do is start with a generic template website that represents all our products. YES this is a treading duplicate content territory.
But I set up at least the index page to represent a unique product we supply.
SINCE WE MANUFACTURE CUSTOM WOOD CRAFTS RANGING FROM FURNITURE TO ART, we have a wide field fo products so that helps. TradUR Company
IMHO, MedicalExpo.com is not worth the $1,500 the Complainant paid to file the UDRP. Still, a very lame and unsupported decision. It’s like the panelist didn’t even read the three tenants of a UDRP decision.
No web site? No response to UDRP?
With that in mind the legal facts are useless.
He might as well given it to them.
This has happened before.
The concept of “not in use but still in bad faith” was introduced 11 years ago in “Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows” (D2000-0003)
Yes, it was Telstra that was used a precedent.
The panelist in the VirtualExpo.com case also referred to Telstra. But he noted that Telstra was a huge brand that predated the domain, which was obviously not the case in the MedicalExpo.com case.
The CAC has a history of using panelists that seem to have a socialist bent. I remember in the early post-launch days of .EU, many of the cases actually addressed which use was better and discussed the social benefits in favor of the winner. It just goes to show you that ICANN makes no attempt at all to control the ADR providers in the dispute mechanism that they require registrants to adhere to. There should be a test and continuing education requirement for panelists.
I would like to “retire” with enough money to (a) challenge trademark registrations and (b) challenge the legal sufficiency of the UDRP process as it is currently formulated. I am not against either trademarks or having an ADR system for domains. I simply do not like the way that things have progressed in either field and we should all demand that they improve.
PRK
I could get a trade mark in 6 weeks for any name you like no problem, and dont even have to prove any use for 5 years. That would work out about $60 per year.
It just goes to show that people are allowing poor decision makers to be on panels which could disrupt the entire process.
It sends a signal to anyone who wants to steal a domain CAN simply by following that exact procedure.
I say throw the bums out – Do it quickly!
[…] A UDRP decision to scare the pants off domainers […]