The 17 year old domain name Areas.com was just lost in a very short UDRP decision in which the domain holder did not even file a formal response.
For all you domain investors that ask why even spend the money to properly defend a UDRP, The Panel found that “failure to respond the Complaint can be evidence of bad faith” in and of itself.
That is why if you have a valuable domain you need to hire an experienced attorney in UDRP matters and ask for a three member panel.
Esitbot.com values the domain name, Areas.com at $73,000
Here are the highlights of the one member panel of Alejandro Touriño
“”The Complainant was AREAS, S.A. of Barcelona, Spain which was founded in 1968, andspecialized in food and beverage services and travel retail, with an international presence in, among other countries, Spain, where the Respondent is based.
The Complainant has a workforce of over 9.670 employees and manages 1.111 outlets in concession spaces.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks AREAS in different countries. In particular, the Complainant owns the following trademarks with effects in Spain, the country of residence of the Respondent:
– Spanish trademark AREAS n° 1543472 registered on December 2, 1992.
– Spanish trademark AREAS n° 1994643 registered on November 5, 1996.
– Community trademark AREAS n° 001823608 registered on January 22, 2003.
– Community trademark AREAS n° 10541894 registered on June 5, 2012.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade name “AREAS, S. A.” since 1969.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names containing the trademark AREAS, including the following:
The disputed domain name
In the case at hand, by not submitting a formal Response, the Respondent has not discussed the Complainant’s prima facie case, failing to invoke any circumstance that could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel observes that there is no relation, disclosed to the Panel or otherwise apparent from the files, between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent is not licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Furthermore, there is no indication before the Panel that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, has made preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that it intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name
Thus, in light of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that a failure to respond the Complaint can be evidence of bad faith.
See, e.g., Spyros Michopoulos S.A. v. John Tolias, ToJo Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2008-1003, in which the Panel stated: “[a]ny such bad faith is compounded when the domain name owner, upon receipt of notice that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trade mark, refuses to respond”.
Noting that both parties are located in Spain, the Panel finds it is also unlikely that the Respondent would not have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the domain name. The Panel finds bad faith registration from the preceding facts.
In several WIPO UDRP decisions, it was ascertained that passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith use, taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent’s behavior. In the present case, the following circumstances seem relevant in this respect: the Respondent has provided no evidence of any good faith use of the disputed domain name; the Respondent does not seem to have associated the disputed domain name with any web site or online presence at all.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”
This is ridiculous
What if you don’t have the money for a lawyer?
Monday
If you have a domain worth $77K then you need to find the $5K or borrow it or get a partner in the domain who will put up the money and you give up a part ownership
Right now the guy has lost his domain so if he gave up a percentage of it for a proper defense that would have been a better move.
If you are arrested for murder you need to hire a great attorney, whatever it takes, otherwise you’re going to jail for the rest of your life
Micheal.
So, I have a £77k property with my name on the deeds. Someone lays cliam to it because the property happens to be named after a generic TM. So, do I have spend 5k or give up part ownership to keep my property? Common sense tells me no.
You need evidence to be arrested for murder. Bad example. ?
Law is heavily tilted towards wealth. It is disgusting, but that’s how it is.
How many poor people are in jail for years and years although a decent lawyer would have cleared them?
Hundreds of thousands, I expect.
It is possible to represent yourself in a UDRP, and although most judges are biased against self-representation (too much trouble for the judge), I have seen some people win.
More concerning to me is the assumption that the owner refused to answer, rather than he was on vacation, away from email. Not everybody is online all the time. UDRP allows only two or three weeks to prepare and deliver a defense. For someone defending themselves that is impossibly short.
What happens if the respondent is in the hospital, on vacation, or her/his correspondence (snail mail) isn’t getting forwarded to wherever he/she is?
This is ridiculous — losing a great domain like this, simply for a “failure to respond”.
Steve
The domain wasnt lost for for a failure to respond, it was lost due to a dirty TM lawyer.
there should be a level before udrp that looks at the most basic metrics and decides if the domain can even be subject to udrp. a udrp should not be allowed to proceed on any domain just because someone gives wipo 1200 bucks. areas.com is the definition of generic domain. this is sickening.
I would at least have responded, with or without an attorney. That being said, I have a myriad of questions surrounding this decision, not the least of which is why this company took 17 years to file a complaint of any kind. Their first trademark was issued the same year I was born, so clearly they are cognizant of the need to preserve intellectual property. The ‘net isn’t new, and neither is the WWW. So WTF? Anyway, a very bad ruling, IMO.
Steve
Well then your.fucked
However if someone sues someone for something, totally unrelated to domain names, and the party being sued doesn’t respond, for the same reasons you raise, courts generally will enter a default judgement awarding the Plaintiff whatever they want.
You need to have plans how to handle your affairs
Micheal
“When your.fucked”
Courts don’t just hand out a default judgment because someone says “I think” I have been wronged. Courts follow principals of law and one of the most basic principles is evidence, evidence finds guilty not tenuous allegation, if this was not the case then it would be easy for anyone to sue another and get what is not rightfully theirs. A system like this will be called corrupt. The UDRP is a Kangaroo Court. Matthew Hopkins, self proclaimed Witchhunter general springs to mind when I think about a UDRP panellist. (Look him up) .
Plus court processes take a look longer than 21 days to decide to hand over someone’s 77k property.
# 21 days is start to end of the UDRP defence and submission process. (For those who don’t know)
no need for lawyer! not even for a 3 member panel unless you have a really valued domain name.
it is not that hard to defend your side on a UDRP. there are some basic notions and some care in the wording so that you don’t get in a wrong foot. but you cannot risk by not replying. that is plain dumb!
maybe it was my watch of Perry Mason in my childhood but it really isn’t that difficult. this not rocket science and it is a very simple legal framework.
Jose
Worked out well for this domain holder didn’t it
Wait Michael you can’t say that to what Jose said José said defend it yourself the respondent didn’t defend anything what he saying is that he could’ve responded himself so we don’t know how that would’ve worked out do we ? Maybe a reply would have saved the domain name.
@Michael — I realize that, but with civil cases, at least in the States I’ve lived, the defendant needs to be served a summons. But maybe that’s changed.
But I have seen cases where the respondents failed to respond but still won.
UDRP is the legal Wild West (I say legal very, very loosely). The descion was an abuse of process. Any other discussion is noise.
Abusers were the Complaintant and the Panelist.
I think it is worse than just failure to respond is bad faith. They are saying that the issuance of a UDRP notice is an official notice that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a TM. Does this mean that knowledge of a TM is an act of bad faith even if you only gain that knowledge once the UDRP is served? Bit harsh and hard to defend.
They have lessened it somewhat by saying that the fact the respondent is in Spain where it it is presumed the complainant and TM are well known, shows that the respondent knows that they are infringing and uses the name anyway. But still, if I was an IP lawyer going to UDRP I would be pointing to the continued Registration of a domain name after a UDRP issuance as evidence of bad faith, having maintained a registration with full awareness that the TM exists.
A frightening decision by sole panelist Alejandro Touriño.
17 years have passed, so the English generic domain areas.com name couldn’t have been hurting their business much, but Spanish complainant decides to have a punt on grabbing the domain name nominating Spanish sole panelist Alejandro Touriño.
The precedent now set by senor Alejandro Touriño quoting “In accordance with prior UDRP decisions, the Panel finds that a failure to respond the Complaint can be evidence of bad faith.” is that if you don’t defend a UDRP costing you several thousands of dollars to defend your domain name then you are almost already deemed guilty. What sort of justice is this? Good business for the lawyers in the WIPO industry if you can get it!
The Complainant was AREAS, S.A. of Barcelona, Spain. The sole panelist was Alejandro Touriño. Guess where Alejandro Touriño is from ? Are you surprised that Alejandro Touriño is also from Spain http://www.ecija.com/abogados/alejandro-tourino/
A frightening decision. However lawyer senor Alejandro Touriño appointed by WIPO will probably attract a lot of business from opportunistic complainants based on his “success”.
Another reason to buy numeric domains. Too many generic domain names being lost in many unethical cases.