The domain name Kaleidoscope.com, about a generic as a term as you can get, was just hit with a UDRP.
The domain is owned by Xedoc Holding SA., who has owned the domain since at least 2001 and maybe as far back as 1999
Of course the term has its own Wikipedia entry.
The company who filed the complaint is not yet listed.
With just a quick search of just the United States Trademark office I found 20 live trademarks just on the generic term plus many more which includes additional words
There are just too many TM just in the US to even start guessing who may have filed the UDRP.
The domain is parked at above.com, the screenshot is attached
We are openly hoping for a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) Ruling on this one
Here’s to the future bankruptcy of whatever company filed the UDRP!
Sounded familiar…I guess they are hoping for ‘third time lucky’…!
http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=Kaleidoscope.com&search=domain
ZaK
Well I see one lost attempt
http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/203207
i guess now everyone knows who the domain holder is
It could be a different complainant correct?
Or it could be the complainant in this other more recent UDRP who also lost and is filing again, or it could be one of the many other trademark owners that are out there that you saw in the USPTO, or even other TM owners elsewhere in the world…I am sure that Paul Keating will take good care of them whoever they are. 🙂
http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2007-0927
Zak
I’m sure Paul will
who can spell it in the first place
The other one is here:
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/203207.htm
Complainant is Kaleidoscope Imaging, Inc., Chicago, IL (“Complainant”) represented by David J. Marr, of Trexler, Bushnell, Giagiorgi, Blackstone, & Marr, Ltd., 105 W. Adams, Suite 3600, Chicago, IL 60603. Respondent is V Entertainment a/k/a Slavik Viner, San Francisco, CA (“Respondent”) represented by Paul Raynor Keating
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0927.html
The Complainant is Grattan Plc, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Melbourne IT Corporate Brand Services AB, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Respondent is Xedoc Holding SA, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, represented by Renova, Ltd., Spain.
——-
Different complainant’s the first two times.
As far as I know, though, this is a record. I’ve seen plenty of names challenged twice, but I’m not sure if there is a three time veteran. I know Paul went a couple of rounds on one or two names, but can’t remember if it was just one of those epic “supplemental dogfights”.
Zak – third time. There was an NAF one as well (waiting for links to clear moderation)