Munchkin fights woman who incorporated “Munchkins” in her domain name.
Baby products company Munchkin has lost its attempt to get the domain name MamasandMunchkins.com from a “working mother of 5 small children”.
Munchkin, which operates at the web site Munchkin.com, argued that Teri VanDerLaan’s domain name “fully incorporates†Munchkin’s trademark.
So what happens when a big company goes after a working mother of 5 just trying to make a living? For once, I think the respondent’s decision to not use a lawyer was a smart move. She wrote a compelling response to show she was being bullied:
. . .the name MUNCHKINS itself is a plural and means children (as in the Munchkins from the Wizard of Oz movie fame). I am a working mother of 5 small children running a very small online business out of my home. I certainly do not feel like a threat to this multi million dollar organization. I am familiar with the Munchkin line but I do not believe that the legal name of my business (Mamas and Munchkins,LLC) nor my website (www.mamasandmunchkins.com) breaks the law or infringes on their business. At no time has anyone EVER mistaken me for them by contacti! ng [sic] me to ask if I carry their products. I was not aware that a nickname for children (AKA Munchkins) could be a trademark violation. When the company was legally filed my lawyer checked for trademark violations at that time and saw no conflict with the word Munchkins. I will respect your decision at the WIPO and I look forward to hearing from you. I have no problem changing landing page or metatag words that are inadvertently listed as munchkin versus munchkins but I would prefer to keep the corporation name and website name that I’ve worked hard for years to build customer loyalty to so that I can continue to support my large family.â€
What arbitrator could rule against this respondent?
But perhaps VanDerLaan is more on top of things that it seems. Her web site has a copyright notice of 2010, wheras Munchkin.com still shows 2008.
Shawn says
Looks like her site isn’t taking orders anymore as her SSL cert expired late last year.
Wonder if she was scared off by the UDRP against her.
Shorty says
@Shawn….Sometimes those SSL certificates keep working even after they expire b/c the issuing company keeps trying to bill the certificate owner after it expires to retain the business.
That’s been my experience.
Yeah….this one sound like a dirty company making a dirty land grab through a reverse domain name hijacking attempt.
Dirty, indeed.
Louise says
How could WIPO not find reverse domain hijacking? Munchkin.com is jealous of MamasandMunchkins’ brand, because the MamasandMunchkins.com site is obviously no slouch! Munchkin should offer to buy the business from the mom if it feels threatened . . .
That decision allows the internet do what the NTIA intended: level the playing field and be the greatest expression of capitalism.
Attila says
Another company wanting something for nothing. We people need to learn to get along in this world civilly. The market is big enough for everyone. I think if a multi million dollar corporation goes after small fish, its mostly because they want to send a message to the 100 other small fish that “hey, we put them out of business, we can put you too if you don’t cooperate”