The Trimount Company, Inc DBA StinkySocks Hockey (“Complainant”), of Massachusetts, just lost its attempt to grab the domain name stinkysocks.com
in a UDRP rather than just pay the domain holder the $6,500 he was asking for the domain.
The domain was registered on February 2, 2000.
The Complainant trademark was registered over 15 years later on September 22, 2015 and at that the trademark was for the term “STINKYSOCKS HOCKEY”
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. was the sole Panelist who rules in favor of the domain holder but did not discuss Reverse Domain Name Hijacking nor even all elements of the UDRP. Basically a lazy panelist in my opinion.
The domain holder did not file a response.
Here are the highlights of the very short opinion
“The Panel recalls that the registration date for the
The Panel observes a general view of the UDRP panels that although a trademark can form a basis for a UDRP action under the first element irrespective of its date, when a domain name is registered by the respondent before the complainant’s relied-upon trademark right is shown to have been first established, the registration of the domain name would not have been in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s then non-existent right.
Therefore, the Panel determines that Complainant failed to establish Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith and concludes that Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As the Panel concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the Panel declines to analyze the other element of the Policy.
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED”
Domain Observer says
Isn’t it enough for the decision that the domain was registered before the trademark date? The domain investors should get united and form a powerful organization to protect their domains from thefts using UDRP. And the LEADERS (who get the most benefits from domaining) in the domain community should act for the cause and contribute to enhancing domainers’ rights and interests.
John UK says
Perhaps it should have been “StinkyUDRP.com”
Michael Berkens says
Should be but not always the case
There are common law rights that have sometime prevailed as well.
There is “the LEADERS (who get the most benefits from domaining) in the domain community should act for the cause and contribute to enhancing domainers’ rights and interests.”
We do its called the ICA
Domain Observer says
Respondent has received quite the holiday present. Even though RDNH was not considered, it looks like many other elements that could have gone wrong for the respondent were also not considered. What should realistically be expected when a respondent does not respond? I agree that this panelist has given a quite lazy response to this UDRP, but I think a responding domain investor would hope to see his name on any sole panelist complaint.
I just don’t understand if the name was already been registered many years ago; before even the creation of the “trademark” Why used trademark as an excused to get the name from doaminer? Wow, thank God he still have his domain. Trademark has been used for skape goat & such; it should be used in reasonable and fair approach? Just an opinion.