With over 44,000,000 reference in Google the term cabañas.com seems pretty generic.
Yet A URDP has been filed over the IDN by Marco Rafael Sanfilippo.
I found that the complainant owns the domain name cabanias.com and the ownership of that domain could be the basis for the complaint.
Domain name: cabanias.com
Registrant Contact:
Marco Rafael Sanfilippo
If you check out Mr. Snaflippo’s site you will see on the top left he uses the words cabanias.com, cabañas.com interchangeably
The domain name cabañas.com does not go to a parking page but is going to a site for booking rooms.
There are at least 8 trademarks for the term “cabana” without the accent.
We will see what happens to this one.
Another out-of-control UDRP. This means “Cabins”…….sheesh!!!!
WTF does the NAF and WIPO approve these to go forward?
Out of greed the NAF and WIPO turns their heads and allows the case to move forward irrespective of the facts.
It seems like Marco Rafael Sanfilippo is just another thief , ladron, or whatever title he prefers where people take others property without just cause.
In my opinion, cabanias.com is a very dirty, sucio company led by Marco Rafael Sanfilippo the master ladron .
That’s very dirty IMO, Marco !!!!!!
99
WIPO has no way of not letting a complaint be filed
Just like a court anyone can file a complaint in any court against anyone for anything.
However unlike a court there is judge who can hand out damages and costs against someone filing a frivolous suit
They can’t prevent the complaint from being filed, but they can reject it prior to appointing a panel for not being a situation the UDRP was designed for.
But I can’t see them turning away business.
Drew
By what authority?
Looks like another parasite trying to steal something that is not theirs.
UDRP rule…
3.b) The complaint including any annexes shall be submitted in electronic form and shall:
(viii) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and, for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used (Complainant may also separately describe other goods and services with which it intends, at the time the complaint is submitted, to use the mark in the future.);
There have been cases where the complainant had no mark and the provider accepted the complaint anyway.
Doesn’t apply in this case because the complainant has a trademark. That the trademark includes the respondent’s domain name exactly – “cabañas.com” – calls into question what the complainant was thinking when applying for the TM. A future reverse hijacking perhaps?
This is getting rediculous –