Walk the Walk Worldwide fails in domain name dispute.
In April I wrote about how a charity had filed a UDRP against Frank Schilling for the domain name WalkTheWalk.com.
Walk the Walk Worldwide, which operates WalkTheWalk.org, raises money for breast cancer research by organizing women to walk marathons in bras.
It sounds like a great approach to raising money and awareness. Unfortunately, the charity took a not-so-great approach to trying to get the WalkTheWalk.com domain name.
It started using WalkTheWalk.org in 1999. It finally inquired about WalkTheWalk.com in 2012, and apparently didn’t like the $56,000 price tag. That led to the UDRP filing.
Walk the Walk argued that the use of WalktheWalk.com to show pay-per-click links related to walking and exercise was an attempt to trade on the good will the charity has developed. It also argued that “while the phrase “You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?” is in general usage, the shorter phrase “walk the walk” is not generic.
The panel believed otherwise, and found against the charity.
The charity made an additional assertion that “it understands that the Respondent’s website previously contained links to pornography, although these now appear to have been removed.”
I’m not sure how you come to “understand” that a site contained links to pornography. Did you see them or not? I looked at historical screenshots for the site and can’t find any suggestions that this was true, nor did the complainant apparently submit any evidence. The respondent denied it, as well.
Schilling was represented by John Berryhill.
Kassey says
Some people just don’t want to pay!
Mike says
Here is a little tip off for domainers. This company purports to be domain investors, BUT I have evry good reason to believe that infact they work for Lawyers/Solicitors building cases against domainers by making approaches to buy domains ,and then that evidence is usually used in UDRP complaints. They will likely telephone and/or email you.
Mike says
Would have helped if I had included the link
http://www.kingfisherdomains.com/
John Berryhill says
“BUT I have evry good reason to believe that infact they work for Lawyers/Solicitors building cases against domainers by making approaches to buy domains ,and then that evidence is usually used in UDRP complaints.”
That’s been the practice of MANY outfits. I’ve had two cases where Sedo feeds different information to the buyer and the seller, to obtain a similar effect.
The problem with this kind of “evidence” is that the relevant criterion is registration for the “primary purpose” of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complaiant. If the evidence show that “[email protected]” contacted the domain registrant, said nothing about a trademark, and tried to negotiate a sale, then this “evidence” doesn’t even show what is sought to be proven. It’s not an attempt to sell anything to the Complainant or a competitor in the first place.
We see these all of the time, with Corporation Service Company being, in my experience, the most common source of this type of evidence. Now, in fairness to CSC, I think they tell their clients “Now, this isn’t good evidence to use in a UDRP”, but they aren’t responsible for what their clients do with the emails.
And, keep your emails. It is very common in UDRP proceedings to have a Complainant “forget” prior inquiries and negotiations. In the pending klipz.com dispute, the principal of the complainant contacted the registrant before he formed his company and two years before he began using his claimed mark. He left out that part of the story which proves he knew the mark he wanted to use was already taken, and instead of picking something else, deliberately chose to forge ahead, and then show up a few years later with his junior trademark. And the circumstances get even weirder from there, mainly because his attorney has no flipping clue how the UDRP works. In a Supplement, he’s gone for a UDRP classic substantive argument of “Berryhill is working for the guy, so he must be a cybersquatter”. I can never find that rule in any section of the UDRP, but it gets argues from time to time. It always brightens my day!
Andrew Allemann says
“In a Supplement, he’s gone for a UDRP classic substantive argument of “Berryhill is working for the guy, so he must be a cybersquatter”
First, you argue that that information is not eligible to be submitted in a supplemental because it could have easily been determined that you would be the respondent’s attorney if he spent 3 minutes on Google before filing the case.
Then, he looks up your record and discovers that, given your win/loss record, you clearly don’t represent cybersquatters.
marka says
Somebody call Guiness. I think this win gives Berryhill and Name Administration Inc the world record for UDRP wins. Seriously, who has won more?
John Berryhill says
I don’t count them. Bad JuJu.