A claimant in a UDRP domain name dispute must prove that the defendant does not hold any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Arbitration panels have not been consistent in their interpretation of this requirement.
Sedo’s latest newsletter discusses a case in which the owner of ambience.biz won a UDRP even though the domain pointed to a Sedo parking page:
“While Complainants are normally quick to point out that a domain in question is being parked as evidence for the factor, that tactic may come under new scrutiny after a Sedo user defended his ownership of the domain ambience.biz after receiving a complaint form a lighting fixture manufacturer who markets their products under the AMBIENCE mark.”
The dispute panel’s decision said:
“Overall, the Respondent has shown that he is using the disputed domain to connect to the websites of businesses that offer goods and services that are substantially different from the Complainant’s goods … The panel thus finds the Respondent does have a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4c(i) of the Policy. In the Panel’s view, well before this dispute arose and without reference to the Complainant and its lighting fixtures and furniture, the Respondent began using the disputed domain name to guide the public to further websites that use music to set a mood or atmosphere.”
The key here was that the parking page pointed to products for setting an ambience–not lighting products, which the trademark owner sells.
Leave a Comment