snubbr.com

GoDaddy user reviews : Good idea to pick GoDaddy?? 3 letters .com UDRP taken out by UDRP

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
The domain is .cmz.com.

It looks investing in three letters is very risky. http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2006-0294.html..

Comments (32)

Thanks for posting. Gives everyone with a 3 char something to think about...

Comment #1

Looks like the original owner of the domain name continually broke the rules and is most likely a contributing factor.:- As shown above he had fake whois information.

The domain was also for sale on SEDO which proves he had no intention of using it, he demanded $35,000 for transfering the domain name.

In his response to the claims against him he claimed the following:- If that was the case why did he list it on SEDO. Also why did he offer it to the complainant for $35,000.

It looks like he has been very stupid and the outcome was the only reasonable outcome that could have come from the proceedings...

Comment #2

Filth,.

I just got into the reading of the entire case...

Yeah, I'd say the respondent in this case created his own demise.

He did PLENTY to ruin himself in this one. As you continue reading the case you start to side with the company who owns the TM.

"It is important to note that the trademark registration document adduced by the Respondent categorically states that the document is not the official document of the Trademark Registry of the Peoples Republic of China and cannot be admitted as evidence in law." - that's gotta hurt Gene..

Comment #3

I agree "Filth" ...It looks as if the owner is using the acronym in bad faith...Not a wise choice on the owners part...

Comment #4

A real shame...looks like the registrant had it since 1995. And that's if it has.

Never changed hands.

The next question, though, is if the complainant is smart enough to get the.

Domain name back and switch nameservers to theirs...

Comment #5

According to the wipo document it was registered by him on the 31st of January 1999..

Comment #6

That decision really sets a loopsided precedence no matter what the original owner did with the name.

The trademark owner registered the mark in 1966 however in the early 80's & 90's had ample time to register the domain if they infact seen that the internet would have a substansial impact on business and as with most businesses they thought the internet was just some fad that would fade away. Thus meaning that they had around 10-15 years to make the decision to register it.

In 1999 anyone of us could have registered this domain in question as a last resort of remaining letters to have a 3 letter .com and anyone here having no particular use for the name itself would have parked it to resell. Now I do not agree with the owners negotiating tactics but it's my opinion that many of us own generic 3 letter.coms that could be considered TM domains in alot of various countries ( they stated that the wording would be ENGLISH as it was originally registered in english so how does a chinese company get to file claim? ) Now are we supposed to surrender these names because of some company owning an acronym based TM as I see the decision WIPO took into account the company name "Construcciones Mecnicas Zumarraga" and acronymized it to thier benefit and if this is the case I personally and professionally own several trademarks that could now benefit me in WIPO decisions and I could now by this precedent setting decision file claims to these domains that are listed at sedo for sale.

I DO NOT like this decision whatsoever abd it just goes to prove that these decisions should be made by the courts and not some hired so called impartial party.

People beware these companies are going to start filing these ridiculous claims hide your good names.

Just my 2cents.

TT..

Comment #7

If that was the deciding factor of any similar wipo decision then no wipo claim would be accepted. Just because the organization did not register the domain name does not mean that someone can use their trademark as part of a domain name...

Comment #8

I draw question with the panelist in this case. Her reasoning at times is shallow and lacking an understanding of how this decision may impact other LLL domain decisions.

A registrant is suppose to have know of a spanish trademark because it has been a tm since 1966? Are domainers now suppose to check every single country before they registrar a domain even when they believe the domain is 100% generic? Moreover, previous precedents shows that a generic domains (LLL domains included) can be registered in good faith even though there may be a trademark on them.

Yeah, this guys contributed to his own demise. I'm curious if the decision would have turned out differently if he did not transfer the domain and come up with the dubious story about the Chinese factory.

I'm not sure how the appeals process works, but I certainly would consider it being there was only one panelist and decision may have far-reaching consequences...

Comment #9

The owner of the domain name was clearly knowledgable of the company as he offered to sell the domain to them for $35,000..

Comment #10

I'm talking about at the time of registration, not at the time of negotiations. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know if the guy actually had knowledge of their TM up until he received the C&D...

Comment #11

I thought I had posted on this as well... I guess it didn't take.

I agree that it's quite a pain in the ass to go through international trademark searches to ensure that you aren't stepping on anyones toes.

I believe it's smart to protect your domain through development. And of course in development you have that lingering annoyance of international trademark violation.

I still have to side with the complainant in this case. The devious acts by the respondent are ridiculous. The respondent wasn't very smart I felt...

Comment #12

Unfortunately ignorance is never an excuse otherwise I could claim I had never heard of mcdonalds or microsoft. If ignorance was an excuse they would have to prove I did know.

As with everything you should ensure you know what you are doing dont just assume it will not be an infringement of any trademark, you MUST check first...

Comment #13

This isn't just about ignorance, this is also about feasibility. How can you ever been 100% certain a domain isn't tm'ed somewhere by someone. Checking uspto.gov certainly isn't enough in this panelist's mind.

Your examples, stated above, are not generic terms. A better example would be registering a domain like apple.com. Apple is generic, but the term is trademarked. Ignorance isn't a valid defense, but there are times where someone could take a generic term like a LLL, check google, uspto.gov and everything may look clear, but the person still may be unknowably infringing...

Comment #14

Fonzie, did you read the whole decision? you need to read the whole thing to understand the decision (and by seeing some of the comments, people have not). This is not about generic or acronyms, this is about a shady respondant who offered a weak arguement and tricks. (Coincidently, some of the tricks the respondant tried to do is some of the "advise" given around here. The panel would have none of that).

So please people, read the whole thing to understand why the decision was made. I agree with the decision from the evidence and credibility given. The respondant did not lose this case because it was based solely on a TM acronym, he lost it because he was a moron, he lied, transferred the domain, requested Chineese be the language, changed the for sale page and present false evidince which hurt his credibility. That is why he lost...

Comment #15

DNQ-.

Yes, I read the whole decision as could be evidenced by my questions above: "I'm curious if the decision would have turned out differently if he did not transfer the domain and come up with the dubious story about the Chinese factory.".

Nonetheless, I did not see anything in the decision that specifically qualified the decision based on the guy's shady actions. Of course, I read over it quickly, so please tell me if I missed something...

Comment #16

To be honest it is completely irrelevant wether the same decision would have been made. This decision was made on the evidence they had at hand and the testimonies of the complainant and the domain owner. Asking and answering questions such as what if's are not important as the result is pure conjecture.

The facts are he set out to deceive and he has paid a heavy price for that...

Comment #17

Peter,.

I thorougly disagree with you on this. As someone who has many LLL domains, my future rights and investments in these domains could be substantially affected by this decision. Yes, I'd like to hope I'm smarter than the dope in this decision. However, if someone ever files a UDRP on one of my LLL domains, I'm sure they'd cite this decision for support (assuming they did their research)...

Comment #18

As he was someone who had a wipo against him he HAS to prove that he has acted in good faith. Lying about the use of the domain, trying to deceive by hiding evidence (such as the change in sale page as well as the content of the page), breaking wipo regulations (transferring the domain) and the fact he tried to sell the domain to the company only goes to show bad faith. If he had nothing to hide why did he take these actions.

EDIT just a note I responded to half of your post then the other half hence why it has shown as 2 posts...

Comment #19

Can you quote me any part of the decision that said his behavior was the sole reason for the decision and not for the fact he had a LLL domain? In my reading, I did not see any comment like this, which leads readers to believe that even if you have perfect behavior, having a LLL domain may still end you up in trouble...

Comment #20

Yes they may well cite this decision but I doubt they would have much grounds unless you have tried the same sort of actions as this dope did. I am not a lawyer nor have I dealt with WIPO but my understanding is that if a previous decision is used as an example the same type of circumstances must be present. This person's actions probably contributed greatly with the decision as it showed he was untrustworthy and of a dubious character. I did not say it was the sole reason but as stated in my previous post when you have a wipo against you you MUSt try and prove there was no bad faith. He has tried to show no bad faith by lying which in itself indicates bad faith.

Put it this way if you were sitting on that board and you were presented with that evidence that he tried to present what would your decision be.

A) Side with the company that has a valid and proveable trademark since 1966.

B) Side with the current owner who cannot prove there was no bad faith and has continually lied.

I know I would certainly have chosen the same decision they have done...

Comment #21

The owner screwed up BIG time...this doesn't set a precedent. WIPO loves to point out all reasons involved in their decision but it's obvious that the owners poor actions are what resulted in the loss. If he had a decent lawyer this would all been prevented. Obviously the guy ain't too bright. Exactly DNQ gets it 100%...

Comment #22

Fonzie,.

I have a few LLL domains as well. And my opinion was in favor of the respondents at first. But seeing all the measures this guy took and lied about several things, I had to side with the complainant in the end.

I read this entire case carefully and I understand why the decision was made in favor of the complainant.

Here are some excerpts from the report:.

"It is important to note that the trademark registration document adduced by the Respondent categorically states that the document is not the official document of the Trademark Registry of the Peoples Republic of China and cannot be admitted as evidence in law." - Boom, claims he's administering another companies website for them under their CMZ trade name , but can't produce official documentation.

If you read the bottom from 6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy to the end of the report, you'll have all logical explanations for decisions that were made.

I believe that the more cooperative and understanding you are about cases like this, the better it works out for everyone involved. I think credibility played a major role in this decision. No one appreciates being lied to.

Also, someone posted above... If he's administering the domain for another company why is he selling it for $35k , why is it listed on Sedo? Why all the b.s. ? That guy made his own bed... I hope he's sleeping well..

Comment #23

Independently the unfair (and may be ilegal) way how the original owner behaved, I think this it is a terrible bad decision for those that invest in LLL domains.

In this case the arbitrer not even taked in account that the domain cmz.com was registered in January 31, 1999 while the cmz.es (Spain, the country of "Construcciones Mecanicas F. Zumarraga" accordingly to nic.es) was registered only in march 2, 1999. Not only that, the cmz.com.es is still available (anyone interested in register it ?).

Unfair bahaviour of the original buyer and terrible decision for the arbitror, not even taking care of the details mentioned before. The consecuences can be very serious for people that register domains in good faith (at the moment of registration this man I am sure he did it in that way or would have registered cmz.es or still can now 7 years later cmz.com.es...

Comment #24

Again, this isn't about a TMed LLL, it was an owner who used it in bad faith. If you read, the panelist even cited a previous case where the LLL was won by the respondant. I stated teh reasons this guy lost, and it has nothing to do with it being LLL.

As far as citing a passage where character of the respondant was taken into account, how about where the panelist didn't elieve his stories???..

Comment #25

Ridiculous decision how many companies can claim to use cmz as an acronym???.

Probably a big backhander was paid to the adjudicator in this case. Any three letter acronym has tons of companies that could claim legitimate rights......No 2 letter .com is safe if this kind of ruling were to be legitimitized.............those bureaucrats at ICANN and idiots that make these rulings should be hanged...

Comment #26

I have a great idea, how about reading the decision before you write a post blasting about items that WERE NOT a factor in the decision... geeesh..

Comment #27

Then do your research as well.

Big corporations do what they can to protect their interests. We should too,.

And in the times we live in we practically have no excuses to be complacent.

I don't like having to go the extra mile, either. But...let's be realistic here: for.

Certain things we enjoy so much, we have to if we're to protect them.

We didn't have to worry about spam either until a few years ago. Now we're.

Forced to research and take action in order for our businesses to continue on,.

With as little hindrance as possible.

I'll be blunt: if you feel it's too much to handle, then it might be time to move.

On. Only the tough and smart will survive...

Comment #28

These are the key phrases in the entire document, "The Panel finds that the Respondents conduct subsequent to the registration of the disputed domain name is indicative that the registration and use of the domain name is in bad faith." and "The Panel accepts the evidence of the Complainant and finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has registered the domain name hoping to profit from the trademark owners desire to reflect it's trademark in a corresponding domain name.".

This is an obvious case of domain suicide. What an idiot!.

This is a paragraph I have prepared in case I am ever in a similar situation with one of my 3-letter/3-character names. Feel free to use it in your own defense. (edited to better reflect my supreme intellect - unfortunately this text is now classified information).

If he would've just not done all the stupid crap and explained his situation in a similar fashion, he wouldn't have lost the name IMO...

Comment #29

Nice text you got there, briman. I just hope it doesn't become too popular, as then the UDRP panel might not be amused the nth time they encounter that verbatim text...

Comment #30

Briman,.

I like the text you have there as well.

I must admit after reading some of the key factors in the decision of this case, it has made me want to not lag so much to develop my sites.

I've worked the long hard hours and will do it again to atleast keep some of the more valuable domains I do have.

We should all come together and begin a development initiative. What is really stopping most of you from developing your sites? Cost of development for design/programming?..

Comment #31

I see where you are going with this and I understand what you are trying to present, but if you sent this to me, this is how I would break it down...

You are acknowledging a TM of the LLL..

Though you state you have an interest in the domain, you then turnaround and say it is an investment and trying to sell it and/or use ad placement. You have no legitamate usage of the site. Rulings have stated this is not legitimate interest.

You acknowledge making money from a domain which you already acknowledge could be a TM. this is bad faith..

You admit to domain pooling and that you are well versed in the domain game. This shows me that what you sent me is just a bunch of BS and you are just trying to outsmart the TM holder..

You state you have no money, so I could easily bully you (even if I am wrong and trying to overreach).

As I stated many many times, just address the issues in a C+D and never admit to a possible TM, and never offer additional information. As far as stating LLL are generic combinations, AOL, IBM, KIA... these are not generic.

Combinations.

So to summerize, can the complaintant show rights tot he domain? probably.

Can the complainant show you have no legitamate interest in the domain? probably.

Can the complainant show it is registered and being used in bad faith? probably.

Labrocca said it best... usage, usage, usage..

Comment #32


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.