In a three panel decision the generic domain name CafeInternet.com was transferred to the trademark holder
“”The Panel determines that while no specific act of bad faith by Respondent…the Panel finds that Respondent, by providing the name of an unidentifiable business entity and misleading contact information, has taken deliberate steps to conceal its identity and make contact or communication impossible, all while operating a pornographic website at a domain name which could be easily confused with the Complainant’s trademark. “”
“”In this regard, Respondent’s listed name, “cafeinternet.com E-mail Services”, and its administrative contact, “Web Enterprises”, fail to denote whether either entity is a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other form of business recognized under the laws of the State of California.””
“”Respondent appears to have failed to provide accurate telephone or fax numbers for the administrative contact in violation of the domain name registration agreement. Respondent has also failed to provide a valid street address, as evidenced by the fact that letters sent by Complainant to these entities that were returned marked “Return to Sender – Not Deliverable as Addressed – Unable to Forward.” These facts suggest that Respondent provided a false name and false contact details in an effort to make identification and communication impossible, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith in this particular case.””
“””In addition, a bad faith determination is supported by the fact that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website displaying adult content. The Panel considers the present case as an example of “pornosquatting,” where linking the domain name at issue to adult-oriented websites is a widely accepted evidence of use in bad faith”
So they find “no specific act of bad faith by Respondent” but then go on to say “where linking the domain name at issue to adult-oriented websites is a widely accepted evidence of use in bad faith”
In other words, if the facts don’t support the outcome you want, then just make shit up and call it “widely accepted.”
Deep.
to quote the great squiggy from laverne and shirley…
“these people make me stink.”
What did we learn today? If you have a generic domain, do not put a pornographic website up, otherwise you will be a pornosquatter and the domain might be taken away from you.
I am suprised Mike allow comments that represent threats even if posted as a ridiculous joke , that surely gives us domainer’s a boost on reputation (already below Politicans and Car Salesmen)
The decision was based on several facts (not responding , false whois etc etc) although I also think the ” pornosquatting,” finding it’s a strecht…
Domo,
Good point.
Guys
Offensive Comments removed thanks for pointing it out
To say it with the words of the dissenting Panelist Robert A. Badgley: “I must respectfully disagree with the decision”. Some good argments in the dissenting vote.
Since when the privacy cover is treated as bad faith?
Many decisions have treated privacy coverage as evidence of bad faith under certain circumstances (i.e. when it it clear that the privacy coverage is used to hinder legal proceedings). See WIPO Case No. D2009-0723: “The Respondent’s bad faith is further evidenced by his attempt to hide his true identity when he transferred the disputed domain name to another registrar and set up a privacy shield for such domain name shortly after receipt of the Complainant’s cease and desist letter. Even if the use of privacy services in general is not to be objected, the use to conceal a respondent’s identity after first notice of a dispute is in the view of the Panel primarily done in order to hinder legal proceedings and thus constitutes an act in bad faith. As a result, the Panel finds that the Respondent has also used the domain name in bad faith.”
addendum: However, it should be clear that the use of a privacy services in general is not to be objected. Many Panels are wrong on this point imho.
Guys
This case didn’t involve privacy rather inaccurate or false whois info according to the panel:
“””Prior cases have found instances of insufficient contact details where the respondents have provided false and misleading information in connection with the domain name registration; failed to provide a voice or fax phone number for the administrative or billing contact as required under the registration agreement; taken deliberate steps to conceal identity, such as registration under a phony name and where communication with the respondent is made impossible; and used the name of an unidentifiable business entity while failing to provide conventional information for one engaged in business activities. In registering the disputed domain name, Respondent in this case has provided only the following information:
Name: cafeinternet.com E-mail Services
Address: P.O. Box [____] Duarte, CA 91009-4195 US
Telephone: 626-[___]-[____]
Fax: 626-[___]-[____]
E-mail: [___]@webenterprises.net
Complainant contends that Respondent’s listed name, cafeinternet.com E-mail Services, and it’s administrative contact, Web Enterprises, fail to denote whether either cafeinternet.com E-mail Services or Web Enterprises are corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, sole proprietorships, or other forms recognized by the laws of California. In fact, the California Secretary of State shows no corporation or limited liability company under the name of either “cafeinternet.com E-mail Services” or “Web Enterprises” operating in or around the Duarte, California area.
“”In addition, the telephone number provided for Web Enterprises is in working order, but does not lead to any business under the name of Web Enterprises. In a reverse directory, the telephone number lists to Adegenix, Inc. with an address at 870 S. Myrtle Ave in Monrovia, California. Adegenix, Inc. is listed in the California Secretary of State corporate database. When dialed, the call is answered by a recording that identifies the number as belonging to Adegenix, Inc.
“”The post office box addresses provided for both cafeinternet.com E-mail Services and Web Enterprises are not deliverable. On two separate occasions, letters sent to these entities were returned marked “Return to Sender – Not Deliverable as Addressed – Unable to Forward.” Neither Complainant nor Complainant’s legal representative succeeded at reaching Web Enterprises or cafeinternet.com E-mail Services at this or any other address.””
A transfer should not be based solely on this fact either.
and it wasn’t…
Peter
If you provide false whois info then you do so at your peril