GoDaddy testimonials : Advise I invest in GoDaddy?? Domainer loses

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

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
WIPO has ruled against a domainer, who has to hand over to some tattoo thing called

Not sure if this is a fair decision or not.

Read more here:

Comments (22)

Sad to see a good domain was stolen or mishandled...

Comment #1

Not good. I expect this case to be disputed.

BME can stand for many things...

Comment #2

Thats is obscenely unfair. How can someone trademark 3 letters to such an extent that they can just take 3 letter domains......

Comment #3

Whilst I in no way like the ruling, the vibe I am getting is that the

Owner knew of the impending issue/s of using the domain for promoting tatoos, and willfully tried to hide his ownership of the domain, several times, whilst targetting tattoos on the website/ against the other aggrieved party.

It would appear that the owner had previously fended off other reverse highjacking attempts against other domains he owned. I personally think he pushed the envelope too far with this one. This is my personal opinion only...

Comment #4

The simple answer is that it's not that simple, for example:

Furthermore, the disputed domain name is comprised of a generic acronym, consisting only of three letters, which in theory may stand for several different things, with the addition of a gTLD. As evidence for it's assertion, Respondent includes a listing of several examples in which the letters DNN are being used on a non-infringing basis. See Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, FA 96364 (Nat. Arb.

9, 2001) (finding that the respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where the respondent has persuasively shown that the domain name is comprised of generic and/or descriptive terms and is not exclusively associated with the complainant's business).

Each of these disputes is decided on it's own facts. The problem in this instance is that UDRP panels have adopted a very narrow view of domain ownership. If a business is a sole proprietorship, changes it's legal form of organization, and then updates the WHOIS data to reflect that fact, a UDRP panel will consider the domain name to have been newly registered by a different entity, even if the equitable owner remains the same...

Comment #5

It would be interesting to know how much the company had offered the domainer for in the first place. I could not find that figure in the ruling...

Comment #6

Another reason to be careful about the ads that are served when parking domains.....

Comment #7

I have a theoretical question completely unrelated to this case. Is it possible to target the ad to appear on the For example, I am selling shoes, and my brand/company is "sfk shoes marketing". has a 1 page article about making money and displays ads not related to shoes but display ads based on his chosen keyword of "earn money". I then goto google adwords and create a targeted ad for "earn money" and specifically target the ad to appear on Will this help me in my case if I want him to hand the domain to me?..

Comment #8

I use a domain attourney for really sticky, valuable names, and I have retained them thus far. The general advice is to have a site up and running with something that relates to the name, but nothing to do with any known trademark..

If there was a site up that was Big Monstrous Events, and it was actively managed as such, they would have a hard task proving the three points WIPO needs to see to turn over a domain..

But I'm NOT an attourny, I cant even spell, and legal issues are definetly left to the pros...

Comment #9

Wow, I can't believe people lose domains simply for that. Next you'll be seeing respondants website is poorly designed, complaintant deserves it more.. total crap...

Comment #10

How much is the domain worth? How important is it to the registrant to keep the domain? At what point would it no longer be cost-effective to keep fighting here?..

Comment #11

A shame to lose this when this, arguably much more legitimate, was won by the same man earlier...

Comment #12

That practically nailed it against Greg.

Suit forthcoming, John?..

Comment #13

Indeed. But that'll pretty much depend on Greg's final decision if he tells John.

To part the red sea...

Comment #14

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since you said it's a theoretical question, but still, someone should slap you for even having that thought...

But I don't know... I would imagine that the panelists would look at the general type of ads being served and be able to tell that something is fishy... Given the way that parking and keywords work, theres no logical reason that an ad for shoes would appear on a page that is using the "earn money" keyword unless there was some underhanded crap going on from the TM holder. I don't think panelists would be that naive, but you never know...

Comment #15

Artificially making your products appear on the page and then claiming infringement is a pretty transparent tactic, which has been tried before:

Complainant has placed a spectacularly high maximum bid of $2.74 to have it's advertisement for absorbents displayed in response to Internet searches for the word pig. Complainant caused the display of it's own ad on the Respondents website, and that such a result was entirely independent of any consciously directed activity of the Respondent...

Comment #16

So maybe, if you are showing ads, research the TM owners and put in blacklist words/phrases/url's to make it much tougher to accomplish such a feat... good to know they are aware of such tricks tho...

Comment #17

I agree - the whois changes was extremely narrow and quite surprising...

Comment #18

You've heard of IBM? AT&T? There are hundreds more. I'm sure they wouldn't have any trouble winning a dispute with a domainer.....

Comment #19

I hope you are not seriously comparing BME to IBM and ATT.

There is a world of difference.

BMEzine got lucky..

And if that domainer had regged a 3 letter domain and was using it for a legitimate ,non-infringing purpose...he may very well NOT lose the domain.

But of course, the corporate behemoth would usually prevail.


Comment #20

Nah, klrsmith was probably replying to ac1d1dty the fact there are companies.

Using 3-letter combos as trademarks in their respective businesses...

Comment #21

Interesting but will be tough to win. Good luck to Greg...

Comment #22

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.