Generic IDN Gets Hit With A UDRP: Cabañas.com

by

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.

 

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. 99 says

    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 !!!!!!

  2. Michael H. Berkens says

    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

  3. Drew says

    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.

  6. Drew says

    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?