eNom.com won the rights to the domain name Enoms.com in a UDRP just 15 short years after the domain name was first registered and 8 years after the domain was registered by the current domain holder.
By the way you got to love the name of the domain holder “Muhammad Enoms General delivery / ENoms.com has been registered just few days after Enom.com, therefore could not have been regstere” (“Respondent”), Indonesia
The registrant actually ran out of room to put in the line for the Administrative Organization which owns the domain name and tried to defend his ownership against a UDRP by his registration message in the whois.
The domain holder did not respond formally to the UDRP and since he acquired the domain in 2007 4 years after the trademark was filed based on his use of the domain he had no case to defend
On the other hand there was no discussion of why it took enom.com some 15 years to file the UDRP or 12 years since it filed a trademark.
Enom.com is owned by Rightside (NAME).
Here are the highlights of the one member panel decision by Sandra J. Franklin:
“Complainant has rights in the ENOM mark via a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,728,146, registered June 17, 2003).
Respondent registered the
Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $1,500.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ENOM mark through its USPTO registration.
Further, Complainant claims that Respondent uses the
This use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy
Complainant asserts that Respondent has also used the disputed domain name to introduce malware to the computers of Internet users seeking Complainant. Panels have agreed that malware fails to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests.
Complainant claims that Respondent has offered to sell Complainant the
Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant’s ENOM mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the
The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which is additional evidence of bad faith under the Policy”