In domain holder that paid over $5,000 for a LLLL.com today just lost it in a UDRP
There have been some nice sales of LLLL.com just at Afternic recently recently making this a pretty valuable domain the right hands.
Here is what the one member panel had to say:
“Complainant has registered several KENA-formative trademarks on the register of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property
These are a word and design mark KENA LATINA (and design), registration number 928951, in International Class (hereinafter “IC”) 16, dated April 17, 2006; KENA LA NAVIDAD (and design), registration number 750227, dated May 31, 2002, in IC 16; KENA LABORES (and design), registration number 740115, dated March 26, 2002, in IC 16, and; KENA COCINA (and design), registration number 741345, dated March 27, 2002, in IC 16..
“Complainant has registered the word trademark KENA on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), dated June 29, 2010,
The application for this trademark was filed as an “intent to use” (ITU) application on April 29, 2008, and Complainant notified first use and first use in commerce as of May 5, 2010.1″
“Complainant publishes a magazine in the Spanish language under the name KENA, as well as magazines under the names KENA NOVIAS, KENA COCINA NAVIDEÑA, SALUD Y BALLEZA KENA and related titles.”
“These magazines are principally distributed in Mexico, but also in other Spanish-speaking Latin American countries”
“The domain was transferred to the present registrar in the name of Respondent on June 2, 2008. Respondent has provided evidence that it purchased the disputed domain name on May 30, 2008 by payment to Sedo GmbH in the amount of US$5,150.”
“Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a pay-per-click link farm parking page maintained by Sedo, including an indication on the parking page that the disputed domain name may be for sale by its owner.”
Respondent indicates that it has designated “shopping” and “travel” as the preset keywords for advertising connections under the Sedo parking system.”
“Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the word trademark KENA on the Principal Register of the USPTO in the United States”
“Complainant has provided evidence of registration of several KENA-formative word and design marks on the register of IMPI in Mexico”
“Complainant has provided persuasive evidence that the term KENA is well-known in Mexico in association with its magazine products, including by providing evidence of the substantial print runs of KENA-identified magazines and the high level of Internet search engine results returned with respect to Complainant’s products by Google, Bing and Yahoo. In addition, Complainant has provided evidence that third-party advertisers actively promote their products in Complainant’s KENA-identified publications.”
“Respondent has argued that it registered the disputed domain name with the good faith intention to establish a website devoted to providing information about success stories with respect to domain names and websites. However, Respondent has provided no tangible evidence of a business plan with respect to such an enterprise, and Respondent registered the disputed domain name more than 2 1/2 years ago. Respondent has not provided evidence of demonstrable preparations for a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute.”
“It is well-established that operating a link farm parking page using a distinctive trademark in a domain name, and providing connection to goods and/or services competitive with the trademark owner, does not establish rights or legitimate interests.”
“Respondent has sought to justify its use of Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name in connection with a link farm parking page on grounds that it is making fair use of a generic or commonly descriptive term. To establish that fact, Respondent has referred to a village in Lithuania, Latin American flutes, Indian religious philosophy, a term in Estonian, misspellings of cities and countries, and abbreviated names of organizations. Respondent has also referred to use of “Kena” as a personal name.”
“Respondent has failed to persuade the Panel that it is making use of the trademark KENA in a generic or commonly descriptive sense such as might establish a legitimate use of that term in connection with a pay–per-click link farm parking page.
“Respondent has provided evidence that “Kena” may be used as a first name or a surname. However, Respondent’s evidence demonstrates that this is an uncommon name in the United States and other places for which it has provided evidence. If there are 1,289 individuals in the United States using “Kena” as a first name, and 58 using it as a surname, that represents a very small proportion of the 300+ million individuals living in the United States. Respondent has not provided evidence sufficient to establish that “Kena” is so widely used as a personal name as to be open for fair common usage with a link farm parking page.”
“Respondent has argued that it could not have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because (a) it was unaware of Complainant’s trademark in Mexico at the time it registered the disputed domain name, and (b) registration of Complainant’s trademark in the United States postdated registration of the disputed domain name, although it was subsequent to the filing of the application for registration.”
“Complainant had rights in its KENA trademark in Mexico at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, including by registration of that trademark at IMPI.”
“More important, however, is that Respondent undertook to pay US$5,150 for the disputed domain name with no plausible explanation of the reason for such substantial expenditure unless Respondent knew or had reason to believe there was a value to that domain name beyond the combination of letters.”
“Respondent purchased the disputed domain name on or about May 30, 2008.”
“Complainant filed its application as an ITU, and notified the USPTO of first use in commerce as of May 5, 2010, with registration issuing on June 29, 2010.”
“Respondent paid a significant dollar amount for the disputed domain name that cannot be accounted for by “genericness” or a common descriptive character.”
It is appearently inconvicable to the panelist that someone would pay $5K for an LLLL.com domain.
Maybe the panelist should start reading the domain blogs where we report sales of this nature almost weekly
Each week a several of LLLL.com domains sell above $5K but now we have a panelist who is theoretically suppose to know something about domains deciding a case based on his pereception that no one would pay $5K for a LLLL.com unless they intended to infringe on a trademark
Even if the trademark is based in a non-US country and one inside the US has ever heard of.
Well the domain purchase “Cannot Be accounted for by “genericness” unless you know something about the domain name market.
It would be nice if panelist knew something about it