cyberlawyer
Established Member
- Impact
- 66
A UDRP was brought by US based Empire Flippers LLC against a competitor Jamkain Media Ventures, owner at "BuySellEmpire.com", alleging misuse of rights in the word 'Empire', while in the same line of business of buying and selling of online businesses.
The Complainant owned trademark rights in 'Empire Flippers' as a whole and not just Empire. While the Respondent argued as to legitimate interests in the domain name, due to generic nature of the words contained in the domain name.
The Complainant showed ignorance as to existence of the business at the disputed domain name. The Respondent produced evidence as to communication between the parties in 2018 itself. Therefore, in uphelding legitimate interests and denying the complaint, the panelist noted:
In the meantime, Respondent invested significant amounts of time and money building its business at the disputed domain. Although laches is not a defense to a UDRP action, Complainant’s two-year delay in filing the Complaint undermines Complainant’s claim of obvious trademark infringement and supports Respondent’s contention that its use of the disputed domain name was bona fide.
I represented the Respondent and were able to successfully defend the matter. Read the complete decision @ https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1925050.htm [NAF FA2012001925050]
Noted by Mr Gerald M. Levine as one of the noteworthy decisions of 2021
@ https://iplegalcorner.com/noteworthy-domain-name-decisions-for-2021/
Close Case: Complainant’s Lack of Evidence (1/21/2021)
Empire Flippers, LLC v. Ansh Gupta / Jamkain Media Ventures, FA2012001925050 (Forum January 27, 2021 (<buysellempire.com>)
“Because the question of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name raised a close question, the Panel wants to be clear about the limitations of this conclusion. The Policy provides a streamlined, efficient administrative proceeding for adjudication of certain domain name disputes. Proceedings under the Policy do not provide the parties with the opportunity to take discovery, and do not provide the Panel with the opportunity to assess credibility through live testimony. For these reasons, the Panel is ill-equipped to make a conclusive finding on whether Respondent’s domain name actually infringes Complainant’s trademark rights. If the parties were to engage in litigation, Complainant might be able to develop sufficient evidence to persuade a fact-finder that Respondent did infringe Complainant’s mark, and this decision does not foreclose such a remedy. However, Complainant has not carried its burden of making that showing on this record. Specifically, Complainant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer brokerage services was not bona fide.”
The Complainant owned trademark rights in 'Empire Flippers' as a whole and not just Empire. While the Respondent argued as to legitimate interests in the domain name, due to generic nature of the words contained in the domain name.
The Complainant showed ignorance as to existence of the business at the disputed domain name. The Respondent produced evidence as to communication between the parties in 2018 itself. Therefore, in uphelding legitimate interests and denying the complaint, the panelist noted:
In the meantime, Respondent invested significant amounts of time and money building its business at the disputed domain. Although laches is not a defense to a UDRP action, Complainant’s two-year delay in filing the Complaint undermines Complainant’s claim of obvious trademark infringement and supports Respondent’s contention that its use of the disputed domain name was bona fide.
I represented the Respondent and were able to successfully defend the matter. Read the complete decision @ https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1925050.htm [NAF FA2012001925050]
Noted by Mr Gerald M. Levine as one of the noteworthy decisions of 2021
@ https://iplegalcorner.com/noteworthy-domain-name-decisions-for-2021/
Close Case: Complainant’s Lack of Evidence (1/21/2021)
Empire Flippers, LLC v. Ansh Gupta / Jamkain Media Ventures, FA2012001925050 (Forum January 27, 2021 (<buysellempire.com>)
“Because the question of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name raised a close question, the Panel wants to be clear about the limitations of this conclusion. The Policy provides a streamlined, efficient administrative proceeding for adjudication of certain domain name disputes. Proceedings under the Policy do not provide the parties with the opportunity to take discovery, and do not provide the Panel with the opportunity to assess credibility through live testimony. For these reasons, the Panel is ill-equipped to make a conclusive finding on whether Respondent’s domain name actually infringes Complainant’s trademark rights. If the parties were to engage in litigation, Complainant might be able to develop sufficient evidence to persuade a fact-finder that Respondent did infringe Complainant’s mark, and this decision does not foreclose such a remedy. However, Complainant has not carried its burden of making that showing on this record. Specifically, Complainant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer brokerage services was not bona fide.”