12 year old Canary.com lost in URDP

[bulkcorn]

Canary.com lost in URDP. More details at link:

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/24/disturbing-12-year-old-canary-com-lost-in-udrp/

 

[namealot]

Not good but asking 7 million? Then Going cheapskate defence option ? Sure they can ask what they want but with that they going to get peeps trying other ways to obtain it the gamble is well worth it for the complainant what do they expect trademark holders just going to role over and pay ?

 

[Retired_Member38]

It seems the guy had form for abusive registrations, I can't imagine that helped.

 

[fozfoz is verified member.]

http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=Lin+ZanSong&search=parties

janel.com, ebonline.com & ampas.com. Tame registrations, hardly illicit. The guy was robbed by the hand of one expert.

 

[Retired_Member38]

http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=Lin+ZanSong&search=parties

janel.com, ebonline.com & ampas.com. Tame registrations, hardly illicit. The guy was robbed by the hand of one expert.

Maybe each of them on their own was tame. But with every additional one its starting to show a pretty clear picture of what he was doing, and why.

I just don't understand these people. When are they going to learn that parking high value domains like that is just potentially causing a massive issue for themselves further down the line.

a $500 design and $4500 of content could have created the most comprehensive site about Canaries online, and would have surely been out of reach of a claim like he just lost to. Madness.

 

[fozfoz is verified member.]

Their was no mention in the judgement that the parking page contained links similar to the complaints mark and or business. So parking the domain wasn't an issue here.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#26

2.6 Do parking and landing pages or pay-per-click links generate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name?

See also the relevant section in the WIPO Legal Index.

Panels have generally recognized that use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages or PPC links may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" [see also paragraph 3.8 below] or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder. As an example of such permissible use, where domain names consisting of dictionary or common words or phrases support posted PPC links genuinely related to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue, this may be permissible and indeed consistent with recognized sources of rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP, provided there is no capitalization on trademark value (a result that PPC page operators can achieve by suppressing PPC advertising related to the trademark value of the word or phrase). By contrast, where such links are based on trademark value, UDRP panels have tended to consider such practices generally as unfair use resulting in misleading diversion.

 

[namealot]

The issue laziness, greed, maybe naivety
A big boy biased system, a single panel member, a country known to be fair and honest?, respondent that appears to have decided not to use any legal representation, asking some may see as a inflated sum who has possibly lost names previously and who’s other registration could be seen as dubious cant see where it went wrong …?

 

[RobMRobM is verified member.]

Seems a big risk to have only one panel member. Putting your domain fate in a single pair of hands.