[Random-bits] More on the 5 "Sucks" decisions

[James Love]

In the 5 WIPO decisions against the UK based Purge I.T., WIPO panelist
William R. Cornish wrote that the owner of the sites wanted to protect
the domains from being used by critics of the companies, and that in two
cases he had sought to sell the domains to the owners of the related
domains.  In one case, for 20 thousands UK pounds.      

   Jamie


http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0681.html


"The Respondent, contrarily, makes it plain that its purpose is to have
none of such free expression. It wants, so it says, to protect against
such engines of free speech. It claims as its own legitimate interest
that it is in the business of obtaining Domain Names which might
embarrass well-known enterprises if the names were allowed to fall into
the hands of critics. The Respondent does not, however, act in a wholly
altruistic spirit, since, as will be discussed further under Element 3,
it seeks substantial sums beyond its own costs before it will transfer
over the offending registration. This latter aspect has to be brought
into account in considering whether the Respondent therefore has any
"right or legitimate interest" in the Domain Name, with which it
otherwise has no association whatsoever and which it admits to have
selected by reference to the Complainant's reputation in its own marks.
The Panel finds that there is no justification for the role of officious
interferer which the Respondent has taken upon itself to provide in the
manner in which it has chosen to do so. The Complainant has accordingly
made out the second element (see likewise Case D 2000-0477
(walmartcanadasucks.com)). 

Element 3: that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain name
in bad faith, in one of the senses of that term set out in Paragraph 4b
of the Dispute Resolution Policy.

The Complainant's legal representative has filed as Annex E of the
Complaint a record of a conversation with Mr Joseph Rice of the
Respondent in which he offered to sell the Domain Name in issue to the
Complainant and suggested that an appropriate figure for an offer to him
would be "many thousands" and mentioned a McDonalds domain name which
"went for £20,000". The Respondent has not sought to deny this
conversation or its accuracy. Taken together with Mr Rice's assurance
that the whole purpose of registering the name was to enable its
transfer to the Complainant, the Panel finds it to constitute plain
evidence of circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the
name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise
transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the
owner
of the relevant marks for valuable consideration in excess of documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. Paragraph 4b(i)
of the Policy states that such conduct is of itself to count as use of
the Domain Name in bad faith. Accordingly the third and final
Element of the Complaint is made out.

 

-- 
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================