TRTL.COM

 
 

Other UDRP cases are now citing the Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited UDRP case regarding the TRTL.com domain name:

 

 
 
 
 

Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / David Wieland, iEstates.com, LLC Case No. D2016-1709

The failings in the Complaint are compounded by the fact that the Complainant delayed making any attempt to withdraw it notwithstanding the Respondent’s counsel’s letter of July 16, 2016 which specifically pointed out, together with supporting evidence, that the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain name on any view must have pre-dated the use of the UNMAIL mark by the Complainant by a reasonable period.  The Respondent’s counsel also pointed out that it would seek a finding of RDNH if the Complainant were to insist in the Complaint.  Even in the face of these clear warnings, the Complainant only sought termination of the proceeding on August 5, 2016 after the Respondent had been put to the time and expense of preparing its Response (see Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335 for a similar example where the complainant was warned that its case was baseless in prior correspondence between the parties, leading to a finding of RDNH).


 
 
 
 

TOBAM v. M. Thestrup / Best Identity
Case No. D2016-1990

Paragraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") states the following consensus view:
"Generally speaking, 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 (whether on a registered or unregistered basis), 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."
……the overwhelming approach of UDRP panels since then has been to affirm the literal meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and to require bad faith at the time of registration or acquisition of the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335
This Panel agrees and considers that lack of registration in bad faith is fatal to the case.

 
 
 
 

Tip Vy Spots LLC Vy v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot
Case No. D2016-0872

- The Complainant, which is represented by counsel, has not even tried to explain why ordinary precedent should not apply, which is directly contrary to its undertaking (Complaint paragraph 21, required by Rule 3(b)(xiii)) "that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument."Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335
 
 
 
 

Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and Charter Communications Operating LLC v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Sheri K Corwin
Case No. D2017-0040

In any case, the Panel adds that the overwhelming approach of UDRP panels since Octogen has been to reject alternative approaches such as that espoused in Octogen and to affirm paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requiring bad faith at the time of registration or acquisition of the disputed domain name. See, e.g.,Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335.
 
 
 
 

Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto  Case No. D2017-0183

…the overwhelming approach of UDRP panels since then has been to affirm the literal meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and to require bad faith at the time of registration or acquisition of the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited WIPO Case No. D2016-0335
 
 
 
 

Screen-It Graphics of Lawrence, Inc. d/b/a Grandstand v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Dorinda Brews, Spadion Corporation  Case No. D2017-1709

The Complainant has utterly ignored settled Policy precedent on several matters fundamental under the language of the Policy and longtime Policy precedent. Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335 ("The Complainant ignored settled Policy precedent in presenting its case as it does"). A few of the more egregious examples are failure to allege or prove targeting, failure to provide proof of either registration or use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, and citing a number of Policy provisions and precedent misleadingly out of context.
 
 
 
 

Airtango AG v. Privacydotlink Customer 2290723 / Gustavo Winchester Case No. D2017-2095

To succeed in a complaint under the Policy it is well-established that under this, the third factor (paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy), the first thing that a complainant must prove on the preponderance of the evidence is that the domain name in issue was registered in bad faith, i.e., was registered with the complainant and/or its trade mark in mind. See, for example, Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:

"The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2000, some 10 years before the Complainant came into existence, and 13 years before the Complainant acquired rights in respect of the mark TRTL and subsequently commenced trading under that name. In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the name TRTL at the time of registration. In this Panel's view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith."

 
 
 
 

Mister Auto SAS v. Wharton Lyon & Lyon Case No. D2018-1330

In this instance the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 1999. According to the Complaint, the Complainant first used the Trade Mark in its business in 2008, and obtained registered rights in the Trade Mark in 2010, i.e., after the Disputed Domain Name was registered. At the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered the Complainant had not yet commenced operations of its business, nor did it have any rights in the Trade Mark.

As stated by the panel in Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:

“In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the [trade mark] at the time of registration. In this Panel’s view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith.”

The same reasoning applies here. The Complainant has not provided any evidence, nor has it even attempted to make any argument, as to why the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant or its future business operations at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Clearly, there is no such argument that can be made. The Complainant states that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the primary purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. This could not possibly have been the case, as the Complainant’s business did not exist when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Without this, based on the material before the Panel, there is no basis on which the Panel can find that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

 
 
 
 

AUSACORP, S.L v. Andrew David Dawson Case No. D2018-1772

As stated by the panel in Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:

“In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the [trade mark] at the time of registration. In this Panel’s view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith.”

The same reasoning applies here. The Complainant has not provided any evidence, nor has it even attempted to make any argument, as to why the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant or its future business operations at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. See Mister Auto SAS v Wharton Lyon & Lyon WIPO Case No. D2018-1330.

The Complainant points to the Respondent’s attempt to sell the Disputed Domain Name at a high price as evidence of registration of bad faith. However, the Complainant neglected to inform the Panel that the Complainant approached the Respondent to attempt to purchase the Disputed Domain Name.

It could not possibly have been the case that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the primary purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, as the Complainant’s business did not exist when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Without this, based on the material before the Panel, there is no basis on which the Panel can find that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

See also DomainNameWire news story:
AUSACORP, S.L. hit for reverse domain name hijacking


 
 
 
 

 

Return to www.TRTL.com homepage.