ChinaReady.com UDRP RDNH

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Thought I would share a case that I was involved in at the early stages with my good friend Steven Lieberman, the domain name is chinaready.com
The Panel decision came down today with the Complaint being denied and a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding be made.

It was an interesting case as our client had a pay per click landing page! A nice extract from the case is:

In this case, the Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name consists of the common phrase “China Ready” and the pay-per-click links come within at least a generally understood meaning of the phrase i.e. “ready for China”. Considering this against the background of the Respondent’s apparent business in advertising and domain monetizing services for others using numerous domain names over the years, and that there is no evidence of the Respondent intentionally targeting the Complainant and/or its business in using the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel considers the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has not satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.​

Another good decision and one where the Panel had the courage to make a RDNH finding, a nice extract is:

In this case, the Complainant correctly identified that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 2006. However, as stated by the Complainant, the earliest date of its registration or use of the CHINA READY mark was in 2012. As such, the registration of the Disputed Domain Name could not have been in bad faith. This point is specifically discussed inparagraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 that “[n]ormally speaking, when a domain name is registered before a trademark right is established, the registration of the domain name was not in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s non-existent right”. In the light of the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant could never have prevailed and that it is unlikely that this obvious deficiency in its case could have been overlooked by the Complainant, who is represented by counsel.​

The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complaint was made in bad faith as an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, constituting an abuse of this administrative proceeding.​

 

[Data Glasses]

Too much hijacking of names over the last couple of years, unless all failed attempts are hit with RDNH i think it will just keep going

 

[atom]

I realise it's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight (and your extracts above Erhan), but given the dates involved, isn't it obvious that they had no case? It seems like a pointless, expensive exercise.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I realise it's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight (and your extracts above Erhan), but given the dates involved, isn't it obvious that they had no case? It seems like a pointless, expensive exercise.

Good point, it is obvious to lawyers experienced in the UDRP, particularly the bad faith registration point (about the respondent having registered the domain before the TM). I am surprised that the complainant's lawyers 'missed' such an important point when .com creation dates are available in the Whois.

 

[atom]

Good point, it is obvious to lawyers experienced in the UDRP, particularly the bad faith registration point (about the respondent having registered the domain before the TM). I am surprised that the complainant's lawyers 'missed' such an important point when .com creation dates are available in the Whois.

'Missed' being the interesting point?