Bangz, Inc. just lost its bid to grab the domain name bangz.com in a one person UDRP decision.
First problem Bangz doesn’t own a trademark on the term.
Second problem Bangz didn’t provide the panel any evidence of a common law trademark.
Third problem Bangz didn’t present any evidence to the Panel any evidence.
They seemed to just file the complaint
Matter of fact the complainant told the panel:
“Complainant does not possess the trademark rights to “Bangz” because there are multiple “Bangz” salons located in the Washington, DC area. However, Complainant, Bangz, Inc. has done business in New Jersey since 1994 under the “Bangz” name and has continuously used this name since this time.”
So for the Panel it was any easy case and win for the domain holder even through they didn’t bother to file a response
Here is what the panel had to say and in case your wondering the Complainant did have an attorney, John J. Zidziunas of New Jersey.
“In this case Panel has nothing of substance on which to base a finding of common law trademark rights.
“There is no evidence provided to support the claims made in the Complaint.
“Without evidence Panel must treat those claims as bald assertions to which little or no weight can attach”
“There is no proof of establishment of Complainant’s business in 1994 under the name “Bangz”, or otherwise.
“There is no evidence of the accolades it is said to have received.
“There is no other proof of the alleged reputation said to exist in the “Bangz” name.
“There are no examples of advertising or promotion, no turnover, no third party evidence of the repute of the business.
“Nothing in fact to prove reputation
“On the contrary, the name is to a degree non-distinctive of hair salon services and there are Complainant’s admissions that third parties are indeed using the same name and that Complainant has no trademark rights.”
Mark Hershiser says
Hmmm, I recently sold Gangbangz.com, I wonder if it’s related or just coincidence?
Too incompetent for RDNH – 😀
Dave Zan says
Fourth problem, Bangz seemingly used a boutique law firm that doesn’t appear versed in domain disputes other than “business litigation”.
Bangz! Dead UDRP dispute, and the respondent didn’t even fire a shot.
This particular squabble has roots that go back quite a ways further.
The same complainant, with the same attorney, went after the same business order in court for something last year… maybe someone with a pacer ID can look up the whole thing and see what it was about.