KOC.com Lost In UDRP Second Time Around: Non Resolving Page Is “Bad Faith”

by

The domain Koc.com was awarded in a UDRP, to the holder of a trademark in Turkey which owns Koc.com.tr.

As in most of these cases, the facts are long on both sides.

Here are the interesting parts of the case;

First, the same company that owns the trademark and filed this action, brought a UDRP on this domain already and lost in 2001.

Second, the domain holder did not have this page parked showing results related to the trademark.  Matter of fact the domain holder did not have the domain parked at all.  The domain was inactive pulling up a non-resolving page.

The panel found that lack of a page was an indication of bad faith:

“””The Complainant contends that an inactive website is evidence of bad faith use and registration. Furthmore, the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name suggests registration for the purpose of selling them for profit. When the Panel visited the disputed domain name on August 22, 2009 it resolved to an inactive website, and there is no evidence or suggestion that the Respondent has any intention of using the domain name for any purpose or legitimate activity consistent with good faith use. Paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions states the lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith. The Complainant’s well-known registered and unregistered trademark and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the domain name are indicative of bad faith. The Panel infers bad faith use considering the circumstances surrounding registration.

The Panel finds the disputed domain name is not being actively used and that passive holding of a domain name is in violation of the Policy and constitutes bad faith, as found in several WIPO UDRP decisions, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. Victor Edet Okon, WIPO Case No. D2004-0245; Telstra Corporation Limited, supra; DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-1232; CareerBuilder, LLC v. Finity Development Group, WIPO Case No. D2006-0615.

There is no suggestion that the Respondent had any intention of legitimate use, that it enjoys a connection to the disputed domain name or that there is conceivable good faith use for the domain name””””

Having read the entire set of facts I’m not saying this is a bad decision.

However it is rare to see a domain awarded in a UDRP 9 years after they lost a UDRP on the same domain.

Moreover, I know a lot of domainers feel you can hold any domain, and its the use of the domain that determines whether you would lose it in a UDRP.  Here is a case that tells you that non-use can be just as dangerous as using it.

About Michael Berkens

Michael Berkens, Esq. is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheDomains.com. Michael is also the co-founder of Worldwide Media Inc. which sold around 70K domain to Godaddy.com in December 2015 and now owns around 8K domain names . Michael was also one of the 5 Judges selected for the the Verisign 30th Anniversary .Com contest.

Comments

  1. D says

    Well the panelist was some courrupted Turk, same person as the dissenting one on horoz.com also recently, this UDRP is becomming joke considering its purpose was for domains like mcrosoft.com

  5. MHB says

    Best Buy

    Yes it is the domain was ordered transferred to the complainant the second time around, first complain was denied in 2001

  6. BuyBestDomains.com says

    It is very interesting, respondent is Turkish and lives in Turkey and Panelist is Trukish and he lives in Turkey and complainant is Turkish and lives in Turkey?
    As legal rules, respondent should NOT be live same country.
    UDRP making really big mistake.

  7. BuyBestDomains.com says

    Lol, I was in a hurry and making a word mistake.
    My comment was like that:

    It is very interesting, respondent is Turkish and lives in Turkey and Panelist is Trukish and he lives in Turkey and complainant is Turkish and lives in Turkey?
    As legal rules, PANELIST should NOT be live same country.
    UDRP making really big mistake.

  8. Domain Development says

    @Mike

    Wow. Shocked to read this decision.

    I think this will light more fires under people to develop out those domains they’re sitting on and doing nothing with. I guess the mini site business will starting ticking up a bit …

    – Richard

  9. Johnny says

    @Richard……instead of us all going on the defensive, how about we go on the offensive and collectivly sue the sh*t out of WIPO and the NAF under RICO ? Why is it that the ICA does not do this? The NAF and WIPO are the most biased and corrupt organizations I have come across in a long time the USA. It is TIME for us to really bring down the hammer on these scumballs.

    I’ll tell you what I am going to do if I ever receive another UDRP. I will file a lawsuit the same day I receive it, and tell the NAF and WIPO to take a hike…….just plain cut them out of the picture. I refuse to let these clown-ass arbitrators take my assets away because I did nothing with my domain, or it was only parked, or whatever lame-ass crap they sling in my face. They will also earn no arbitration fees from me either “forever no more”.

    Screw them……it’s court from now on! If all of just went a filed a suit for EVERY UDRP, this insanity would ebb considerably. Combine that with a suit against the NAF and WIPO for running freakin’ money-making rackets like some damn small Southern town speed trap, and we might regain some semblance of balance.

  10. snicksnack says

    @ Johnny

    Not everyone has the cash to start a law suit. I fully agree that these clowns from WIPO etc should at on stage be held responsible for their actions.

  11. Reb says

    As pointed out previously this is just a case of reverse hijacking by quietly sourcing a local judge in an international arbitary panel.

    Where do I send my brown envelope?