# CDRP: CMi dispute



## Nafti (Dec 7, 2020)

A nice read regarding the .ca domain of cmi. 

https://www.cira.ca/sites/default/files/cdrp/report/CMI.ca Decision (1).pdf

“ In the summer of 2019, Mrs. Kalache contacted MyID.ca for an estimate of the costs to develop the CMI.ca website. The quote came to CAD $305,000.”

Someone was looking for a very nice profit or the price of making a website sure has escalated in the last few months! :lol:

_[Updated by Moderator]: Added "CDRP:" preface to subject for easier reading/locating._


----------



## FM__ (Dec 7, 2020)

Added "CDRP:" preface to subject for easier reading/locating.


----------



## FM__ (Dec 7, 2020)

A very interesting read indeed. Granted, I've not spent a lot of time reading CDRP disputes before, but it's actually on my todo list after it came up as a topic in this year's CIRA board election discussion on the CIRA provided forum.

The full paragraph:


> In  the  summer  of  2019,  Mrs.  Kalache  contacted MyID.ca for  an  estimate  of  the costs  to  develop  the CMI.ca website. The  quote  came  to  CAD  $305,000. Subsequently, Mrs.  Sabah  put  the  project  on  hold  until  she  figured  out  how  to proceed in a more affordable manner. Later on, she decided to offer the Domain Name  for  sale  through  Fadi,  her  associate,  using  a  vendor  called  Afternic. Any sponsored links on the landing page were created by Afternic without her input and without earning revenue. She received a number of offers for the Domain Name.



I didn't know MyID offered web development services, but I guess this is used here to underline the fact that she didn't have bad intentions when buying the domain and when listing it for sale. On top of that her specifications for the website must have been quite extensive at this price.


----------



## domains (Dec 7, 2020)

Nice to see the registrant won.


----------



## rlm__ (Dec 7, 2020)

Important takeaways:

#1 - This reinforces the legitimacy of reselling domains that are arguably generic, for profit.

_In our view, offering a domain name for resale (including for a profit) does not, on its own, lead to the conclusion that a registrant registered a domain name in bad  faith with the primary purpose of selling it to a trademark owner._

_Consistent with the UDRP consensus view, holding a domain name, even for resale,consisting of an acronym can be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the Policy._

#2 - In regards to domains that aren't clearly a generic product or service (i.e. acronyms and many dictionary words), parking with advertising isn't generally worth the risk.  It invites CDRP/UDRP complaints based on a legitimate complaint that a domain is infringing, even if the mark isn't a registered trademark, or even if the domain registration predates the trademark.  Essentially, you're just provoking a fight, and you'll have to now defend yourself.  You may still win, but you have to spend valuable time and money defending these complaints, and there is always going to be some risk as these are decided by humans who can be swayed. Instead, simply display a for-sale page and you will clearly establish your legitimate interest in the domain for resale purposes.  This will invite more offers than a parked domain anyway, and any potential revenue loss is likely trivial.

#3 - CMI was sold for $16,000 CAD on Jan 31, 2019, a decent sale.


----------



## MapleDots__ (Dec 7, 2020)

So who was it eventually sold to?


----------



## rlm__ (Dec 7, 2020)

It was allegedly sold to the person who then had the complaint filed against her, and that purchase was revealed in the CDRP documents. It doesn't appear to have been resold since.  Sometimes the complainant, after losing, will just buy the domain.  It does not appear to be the case here since the domain goes to a blank page.

Note that both domains owned by complainant were picked up in TBR, by MyID, around the same time in 2018.  Also note that the CDRP panelists acknowledged the suspiciousness of the registrant's story, their ownership provenance (72 y/o owner lives in france with canadian citizenship and names that didn't match) and a 3rd party negotiating with supposed registrant on behalf of MyID over supposed web development costs.  This just adds to the whole suspiciousness of MyID in general.  But despite any of those suspicions, the fact that the domain is indeed generic enough to be reseller investment grade, the complaint thus failed the "bad faith" test.

My takeaway from that is, don't get too cheeky trying to prove legitimate interest with some lame story (unless of course it's absolutely true).  Just admit you bought it as an investment for resale purposes and you'll be fine.


----------



## DomainRecap (Dec 7, 2020)

rlm said:
			
		

> Also note that the CDRP panelists acknowledged the suspiciousness of the registrant's story, their ownership provenance (72 y/o owner lives in france with canadian citizenship and names that didn't match) and a 3rd party negotiating with supposed registrant on behalf of MyID over supposed web development costs.  This just adds to the whole suspiciousness of MyID in general.



I think we all now exactly what goes on there, and this bizarre fable is just another brick in the wall.


----------

