I Still Don’t Understand How Any WIPO or URDPs are Won for Three Letter Dot Coms Unless Stupidity is Involved

Jun 14 2011

I understand the purpose of WIPO and UDRP.  Something has to be set up to manage disputes among trademark holders and domain holders.  What I don’t like is the “all over the board” decisions and I especially don’t like seeing ANY three letter dot com cases.

As long as the content of the website doesn’t attempt to impersonate or make reference to a company that shares a similar acronym,  I see absolutely no reason to ever turn a three letter dot com over from one owner to another.  There are so many other uses for acronyms that I think it’s ludicrous to think that one entity owns the right to those three letters.

Even ABC could be “Another Biscuit Company”  out of Omaha that makes the best yeast rolls in the world.  (Made that one up). If their site is dedicated to their rolls and biscuits then I see no reason to hand it over to the television conglomerate of the same name.  If the website had reviews and information that made the users think they were at the real ABC or made money using the ABC brand then fine, turn it over.  That’s it.  You can hand me any three letter dot com WIPO case and I can give you a verdict in 30 minutes.

If you own a three letter dot com and you put it on a parking platform then you deserve to lose it.  You put ads on that site that refers to the brand of that acronym and you’re toast. There should absolutely NEVER be a case that is won by the plaintiff on an unresolved domain or a site that is set up for another purpose unrelated to the person trying to attain the name.  Never.  There are too many other uses for a three letter acronym to make it sole property of one company.

I figure the companies are giving it a shot for $4,000, the cost of filing a WIPO case.  To them it’s less than they’d spend on sending three people to a motivational seminar so why not try and get a free domain.  Of course I’m a little biased but I think you should throw a big penalty or payment for losing a WIPO case to the defendant.  It would make big companies think twice before filing a foolish case.  I would also like to see the continued losses in three letter tld cases like KPN.info to set precedence for the future.  Showing companies that there better be some true infringement if you are going to even think about attempting to collect a three letter dot com.

Share This

About the author

Outsmarting the Dumb, Outworking the Smart

View all articles by ShaneCultra

3 comments

  1. Jason

    “If you own a three letter dot com and you put it on a parking platform then you deserve to lose it.”

    I don’t agree with this. What if the owner was looking to maximize revenue while they develop the asset. Im pretty much on the current owners side most of the time and see nothing wrong with buying domains for type in traffic, or parking to sell at a later date when valuations are higher. Its an investment!

  2. Samit Madan

    Should you lose an undeveloped plot of land being rented out for billboards just because you’re not ‘using’ it?

    If not, why not apply the same paradigm to domains?

    My use for a particular domain could be parking it, as long as the ads don’t infringe any trademark, that should be enough.

    UDRP is designed to assist people who file complaints, not the other way around.

    Just like the trademark system is designed to help existing brands, not new ones.

    Though with the recent award of damages to a company based on a UDRP win with RDNH, it might give pause to some against filing frivolous UDRPs, as they have been in the past.


    1. Post author
      ShaneCultra

      If you let the name go into parking, the parking company does not care if the ads are from the infringing company. They merely fill by keywords. That’s all I’m saying. You don’t control the ads.

Comments are closed.