Porsche Loses UDRP On Porscheexperience.com & Porscheguides.com Even After The Owner Offers To Sell Them
It’s becoming very frustrating for domainers to know what the status of the law is regarding UDRP’s, as decisions are all over the place an seem to have little consistency.
In a decision released today, Porsche the car maker, filed a UDRP on the domains porscheexperience.com and porscheguides.com.
The owner of the domain according to the facts, offered to sell the domains to Porsche for 5,000 euro’s. or around $7,500 at today’s exchange rates.
Despite offering to sell the domains to the trademark holder, the Sole Panelist found no bad faith existed on the domain holders part, saying:
“”"The Respondents …. did not register (the domains) primarily for the purpose of sale, even though the Respondents subsequently offered to sell them for a substantial price to the Complainant.”"”
Say What??
The panelist went on to say:
“”"Although the Complainant’s mark has a very high reputation, it does not follow that any use of it in a domain name would be in bad faith for the purpose of the Policy.”"
One of the domains, porscheexperience.com was used by the domain holder to promote a e-book on Porsche Cars, at some point, but when the complaint was filed neither domain was resolving or being used by the domain holder in any manner.
It was at this point Porsche demanded the domains be transferred to it at which point the domain holder told Porsche to buy it from him.
So domainers, I share your frustration with UDRP’s.
I have seen cases where non use has been held to be bad faith.
I have seen a ton of cases where once the domain holder offers to sell the domain to the trademark holder for anything more than registration costs, the domain holder loses.
Here the domain holder wins.
Here’ the frosting on the cake, the domain holder didn’t even respond to the complaint.
About 10 days ago, in response to post about another UDRP decision, I had many domainers tell me, if you don’t respond to a UDRP, your’e going to lose.
So I’m totally confused on how any UDRP will be decided.
The lack on reliance on any one case to the next and total inconsistency in rulings, leaves us all vulnerable to UDRP’s which seems to now be giving everyone a “gamblers chance” for a win or loss.
Loading ...
NAF or WIPO?
Excellent observation.
JP
WIPO
Just posted the link
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0989.html
My Porsche Experience: A++
I have owned a Mercedes, a BMW and now a Porsche…and Porsche is by far the best car…A++
this case is just funny on many fronts.
Funny enough that makes me want to send Jonathan Turner a bottle of wine or something lol
we read about a lot of sad decisions, this one is just funny in a wrong kinda way… would you agree Mike ?
FX
I’m more troubled, than amused, by the ruling.
Sure it’s a case that the trademark holder should have won, but there is no scorecard in the sky that “makes up” in some way for bad decisions that went against domain holders on other decisions.
As a lawyer and a domain holder I would rather know the law going in and feel confident that I’m on the right side, rather than basically buying a lottery ticket & watch results on TV.
This ruling is mind blowing. I miss my 1967 912 too…
Porsche should have won this one… It is alarming that UDRP decisions are almost impossible to predict. Some of those UDRP panelists apparently have no clue what they’re doing.
@Anunt: I wouldn’t agree that Porsche is without reserve the best of them. Both BMW and Porsche make excellent cars (in my opinion). Overall, the BMW 7-series and the Porsche Cayenne may be the best cars I’ve driven so far.
Unclear Domain Rights Policy … jeez!
I would have guessed NAF.
The ruling actually makes sense, given the rules: he didn’t register it to screw Porsche, and didn’t use it for that purpose. Maybe it’s unfair to Porsche, but case closed since you need to fulfill all the three conditions.