The domain name Dune.com has been hit with a UDRP.
The complainant was filed by Dune Holdings Limited which was formed in 2001 and uses the domain name dunelondon.com
According to BusinessWeek.com, “Dune Holdings Ltd. designs and retails fashion footwear and accessories for men and women. It offers boots, shoes, sandals, bags, scarves/gloves/hats, and sunglasses, as well as belts and jewelry. The company provides its products through its stores and department stores worldwide, as well as online. The company was incorporated in 2001 and is based in London, United Kingdom. It has its own and franchised stores in the United Kingdom and internationally. Dune Holdings Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Browning Enterprises Ltd.”
The domain name was first registered in 1997 by Dune Microsystems Corporation. The domain changed ownership in 2003 to UltraSearch Proprietary, then was owned in 2005 by SearchMachine, LLC of Calabasas, California. The domain registration went into privacy in December 2012 where is currently sits.
According to Screenshots.com the domain name has been parked since at least 2005.
As for the term Dune it is probably best know for a best selling science fiction book that was made into a movie in 1984 by David Lynch
Dune Holdings Ltd changed its name TO (note “TO”) Dune Holdings Ltd FROM BROWNING HOLDINGS LIMITED on the 5TH FEBRUARY 2003 .
Stuff like this really makes my blood boil. What’s the definition of ‘dune’?
Dune:
A mound or ridge of sand or other loose sediment formed by the wind, esp. on the sea coast or in a desert.
And when you search Google for “Dune”, there is no Dune holdings website that pops up. They’re not even well known.
Give me a break!
There’s more than one business callled Dune Something.
Its also a generic.
SHAME!
If this one does not end in a RDNH decision it is a disgrace.
Frank Herbert’s children would have a far stronger claim to this domain than this pissy clothes company. As would film Director David Lynch.
I have had a look into this and I have found that through a subsidiary/parent company the Complainant has trade marks for the word “Dune” since 1986 onwards, quite a few of them infact. So one could not argue that the Complainant does not have trade mark rights in “Dune” because that argument would fail, they do. The fact is that ,rightly or wrongly, it IS possible to trade mark a generic word invarious ways and for various Classes of Goods & Services . Under TM laws the complainant would need to show a breach of their trade mark in the jurisidiction of that/those TM /’s to succeed ,which they could not do, but under UDRP rules they have much much better chance I guess.
Loved the book, hated the movie.