A ridiculous UDRP decision

[signature]

http://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/0...aka-mrs-jello-loses-a-horrible-udrp-decision/

How can anyone justify this decision, how can you register a domain name in bad faith, when the registration happen before the company and trademark was formed.

Lets hope this is just a one off, also that the defendant do have money to take legal action.

 

[ian]

Absolute madness!

Edit - hadn't realised they were using a holding page with ads relating to the company.

.

 

[RobM]

I hope this goes to court.
Actually I just read it. There were ads from the landing page that sold the complainants products. Game over at that point. I assumed it was sedo earlier but I may have been wrong. However anyone that provides adverts for your page can put whatever they feel is most likely on there. You cannot have anyone providing 3rd party ads for a valuable domain because, even if it doesn't show ads for a certain product, unscrupulous companies can search for them from various IPs over a period of time until they *do* show up on first landing.

 

[martin-s]

I don't agree that this is completely ridiculous.

The registrant should have ensured that the trademarked rights weren't infringed after they were given notice.

 

[accelerator]

First of all, RIP Igal Lichtman.

I have not read a detailed report, I assume some automated parking ads were being used. From a domaining perspective, an error has therefore been made as ads were shown for a Trademark owner on the domain. For domainers, it is dangerous to use any automated service that displays automated ads, as that could bring up the (new) Trademark owners ads and this can be used against you.

 

[namealot]

Greed, stupidity, ignorance, Ads PPc etc you’ll always run a risk they p someone off if it’s a premium even higher chance unfortunately give some ammunition they’ll use it ?