Impressons LLC of California lost its bid to grab the domain name Bolter.com in a UDRP
The domain holder Stanley Pace was represented by Howard Neu.
The three member panel of Fernando Triana, Esq, Debrett Lyons, Esq. and David Einhorn, Esq found that the Impression who just filed for a trademark last year did not establish common law rights in Bolter before the domain name was registered in 2013 and that “Bolter” was a generic term.
Here are the highlights:
“Respondent is in the business of registering, leasing and selling domain names and has accumulated over 10,000 surnames for that purpose.
While the domain name went to a pay-per-click page none of the ads were directed to the products of the Complainant therefore, no confusion could be caused.
“Bolter” is generic and can be used as a surname or as a term to refer to “bolt guns.”
The website to which the disputed domain name resolves makes it clear that Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration.
When Complainant offered to buy the disputed domain name, Respondent requested a valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name, as shown in the asking price started at $59,999 and ended at $99,999.
Nonetheless, Complainant failed to offer enough evidence to determine that the disputed domain name was also registered in bad faith.
The only evidence filed regarding use by Complainant of its trademark before the disputed domain name registration, are four invoices which can be found in Complainant’s additional submission. Those invoices are for the total amount of USD$90, which is not enough to determine common law rights regarding the trademark or to even allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent knew the trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, Complainant did not provide the Panel with any other element regarding registration in bad faith, such us, a documented previous relationship with Respondent.”
