The UDRP was bought by the trademark holder after he refused to buy the domain from the former owner.
Apparently the trademark holder was offered the domain by the previous owner for $25K and then at $15,500 but rejected both offers.
Mr. Booth went ahead and then bought the domain for $12,700.
The trademark holder then filed the UDRP (costing him probably $5K) against the buyer Mr. Booth.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is being used solely for the purpose of serving sponsored links and generating click through advertising revenue. Consequently, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is set up solely to run PPC.
The Complainant alleged that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because it was registered after the Complainant’s mark; because it was transferred to the Respondent after the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter; because the Respondent registered and is using the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business; and because the Respondent is parking the domain.
Respondent, argued that the phrase “MY SCHOOL” is a common generic terms and the Respondent has fairly used the terms to describe the services that it offers. and was not aware of the Complainant when it acquired the disputed domain name and the mark MYSCHOOL.COM.
In finding for the domain holder the panel noted:
“”When the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name from its predecessor in interest in December 2009, the Respondent also acquired all rights, title and interest, goodwill associated with the disputed domain name and the service mark MYSCHOOL.COM. The Panel finds that these facts are evidence of Respondent’s concurrent rights in the disputed domain name.”
The Panel went on to deny a request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Congrats to Andy and Stevan, nice win, nice purchase.
Trademark holders ever heard the expression penny wise, pound foolish?
I thought this was an interesting comment by one of the panelist.
“The Panel also notes that a national court would be a more appropriate venue than the present proceedings to consider and resolve the Complainant’s allegations regarding the reliability of the evidence presented by the Respondent.”
The link to the decision is here
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1319483.htm
Stevan, great job.
Another landmark decision with your legal assistance.
I’ve worked with Andy Booth on another of his domains. Stand up guy and well deserved victory.
-Andrew
>When the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name from its predecessor in interest in December 2009, the Respondent also acquired all rights, title and interest, goodwill associated with the disputed domain name and the service mark MYSCHOOL.COM.
Too bad this is uncommon reasoning among UDRP panelists.
>When the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name from its predecessor in interest in December 2009, the Respondent also acquired all rights, title and interest, goodwill associated with the disputed domain name and the service mark MYSCHOOL.COM.
Michael: Would you suggest including this language in any sale agreement to keep your ownership date the same as the create date(or at least as old as the previous owners? If you bought a “business” with the domain as an asset–and the only real asset, Are you risking looking like someone who is trying to get around the rules or not? If so, can you suggest some language Counselor? 🙂
Chip
I think its important to note first and foremost that there was a purchase agreement for the domain, rather than just an escrow.com transaction or a transaction through an aftermarket company.
In the agreement you can have the owner selling you all of the goodwill, trademarks etc associated with the domain that he had in the domain name.
Good job, and congrats, Andy.