• Home
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Awards
  • Privacy Policy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS
TheDomains.com

Takeout.com Wins UDRP & Gets A Finding Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

November 9, 2012 by Michael Berkens

A three member UDRP panel just rejected the complaint brought by Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina against  Versimedia, Inc. of Wilton, Connecticut, on the domain name takeout.com and found the complainant was guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

“In its trademark application, filed roughly six years after Respondent registered the generic or commonly descriptive term “takeout” as a domain name, Complainant alleges that its first use of TAKEOUT.COM occurred in 2010.

“Given the record, it strains credulity to believe that Complainant did not know or should not have known that it had no trademark rights in TAKEOUT.COM that could serve as the basis for this Complaint.

“It is no excuse that Complainant may not be familiar with clear Policy precedent, the Policy, or the Rules.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Panel makes a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.””

Here is the relevant facts and findings from the panel

“It is well-settled that a Supplemental Registration in the U.S. is not sufficient in itself to establish that a Complainant has rights to a mark for the purposes of the Policy. ”

“In this case, the website provided by Complainant as evidence of use of TAKEOUT.COM in November of 1999, <tarheeltakeout.com>, only shows use of TARHEEL TAKE-OUT EXPRESS as a trademark. Complainant itself notes in the Complaint that this mark was used only in North Carolina. Complainant has not shown that this use of <tarheeltakeout.com> and TARHEEL TAKE-OUT EXPRESS conferred any trademark rights for the merely descriptive TAKEOUT.COM on Complainant.”

“This application also states that the first use of TAKEOUT.COM occurred in 2010, roughly eleven years after the first use claimed in this Complaint. ”

“The Panel notes that the application relied on by Complainant ultimately registered on the Supplemental Register. However, Respondent had obtained the disputed domain name <takeout.com> approximately six years prior to the filing date of Complainant’s application for TAKEOUT.COM.

F”inally, the Panel notes that there is substantial third party use of TAKEOUT.COM as well as the generic or commonly descriptive phrase “takeout.” “Takeout” is a term commonly used to “describe food or a meal to be consumed away from its place of preparation. ”

“The Panel finds that Complainant has no rights in TAKEOUT.COM as a service mark that could serve as the basis for this Complaint under the Policy.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.”

7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

In this case, the only alleged rights in TAKEOUT.COM that could have arisen prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name stem from Complainant’s use of TARHEEL TAKE-OUT EXPRESS at the domain name <tarheeltakeout.com> for services rendered in North Carolina.

“In its trademark application, filed roughly six years after Respondent registered the generic or commonly descriptive term “takeout” as a domain name, Complainant alleges that its first use of TAKEOUT.COM occurred in 2010.

Given the record, it strains credulity to believe that Complainant did not know or should not have known that it had no trademark rights in TAKEOUT.COM that could serve as the basis for this Complaint.

“It is no excuse that Complainant may not be familiar with clear Policy precedent, the Policy, or the Rules.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Panel makes a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.”

“While the Panel recognizes that Complainant attempted to withdraw its Complaint after learning that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name for a legitimate use, the Panel does not believe that the Respondent should in the circumstances have been forced to present such evidence in light of Complainant’s previously disclosed lack of rights in “takeout.com” in combination with the commonly descriptive nature of that term. For Complainant to have brought these meritless UDRP proceedings in the first place is such circumstances and to have put the Respondent to the not insignificant cost of having to mount a defense to a baseless claim should be discouraged.”

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

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.

« After Turning Down Google’s Offer To Buy It For $6 Billion, Groupon.com Finds Itself Having a Value of Under $2 Billion
Will FiscalCliff.com Become the Best Hand Registered Domain of 2012? »


Recent Articles

  • Sedo weekly domain name sales led by ThisAV.com
  • CentralNic 2022 gross revenue of about USD728 million
  • Is The Rock going into politics? A couple domain name registrations point in that direction

Recent Comments

  • Charles on What is a fair sales commission rate?
  • zakaria on What is a fair sales commission rate?
  • Steve on What is a fair sales commission rate?
  • Steve on ChatGPT.net sells for $8,900 at DAN.com
  • Snoopy on What is a fair sales commission rate?

Categories

Archives

Copyright ©2022 TheDomains.com — Published by Worldwide Media, Inc. — Site by Nuts and Bolts Media