UDRP Arbitrator Shares Insights on Trademark, Domain Name Disputes
“…if you’ve got a domain that you think is worth five or six or seven figures, then parking that page comes with risk if you have no reasonable way of excluding trademark protected ads or trademark infringement type ads on that page.”

“The software made me do it is not a defense.”

http://tcattorney.typepad.com/anticybersquatting_consum/2010/03/udrp-arbitrator-shares-insights-on-trademark-domain-name-disputes-and-cybersquatting-issues.html

The panel is looking at the domain as F1drinks.com, the one spelled out is just repeating the F1.

So F1cars is infringing as Fonecars.com would be.

They are saying that sports energy drinks are associated with sports and therefore infringes based on the use and the history of the domain holder.

Guess NFLdrinks.com would get knocked out as well.

I see a lot worse decisions

My comment was specific to that major detour from the confines of the policy. The panelist used CONTENT of a website to make that determination and that is not within the purview of UDRP. Sure, in a court proceeding, F1 would win because of the PRODUCT being infringing… but, again, that is not something to be considered under the UDRP process. Should that become the “norm”, then what will we see next? ParrotsEatingTransexualSpiders.com being taken by UDRP because they have content relating to Pets?

Ok I don’t think this one is a bad decision

First the domain holder did not respond.

Right there you have death to smoochy.

Then its a parked page.

But here is the kicker.

The same domain holder had another F1 domain that it lost on a UDRP before he registered this domain.

“”"Moreover, the disputed domain name was registered shortly before the decision in WIPO Case No. D2009-0797 was released, whereby the transfer of the domain name was ordered to Complainant in the present case. The respondent in WIPO Case No. D2009-0797 has the same address of Respondent in the present case. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Respondent was unaware of WIPO Case No. D2009-0797 in which Complainant’s rights were recognized and the transfer of the domain name was ordered. By registering the disputed domain name, which is very similar to a domain name that was highly likely to be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s established trademark rights, there can be no doubt that the domain name in this case was registered in bad faith.”"

You can only be so dumb so often

They decide the the domain name Fone1Drinks.com is “confusingly similar” to the TM for F1 … WTF, you might ask… well, seems they were selling an energy drink that seemed to be exploiting the F1 mark… ok, so I see there is a definite conflict there but the point is that is NOT within the scope of the policy to decide such matters as it involved something other than the domain name itself.

This panelist was indeed correct that this is a LEGISLATIVE matter and not a JUDICIAL one. It is up to the non-responsive ICANN to amend its rules if indeed that is what they want to do. It is NOT up to the individual panelists to amend the Rules, but to simply APPLY them to the case in front of them. To the extent that panelists have applied the Rules by bending them so far out of shape that they become almost unrecognizable is the reason that there is a mechanism in place to question and overturn unreasonable decisions. Though there is no Appellate process, per se, the losing party CAN file in U.S (or other countries, if applicable ) Federal Court for a decision that IS governed by the law interpreted by previous decisions.