Laughable offer (1 Viewing)

  • Topic Starter rlm
  • Start date
  • Replies: Replies 26
  • Views: Views 1,001

Ahh, I seem to remember something about that one.

Yep, that is a keeper for the right end user

Speaking of laughable offers...

Got a $300 offer for Munchie.ca today. Was told it's a terrible domain and a second choice for them given they are not able to secure their desired name.

I told them they need to keep looking for a domain that is not so terrible.
 
He's had at least 18 CDRP cases brought against him, and at least 3 UDRPs, so at least 21 cases so far....and I'm almost certain there are more since he often uses his corporations' names as the registrant and it's possible I haven't spotted them all. Plus there seems to be some connections to cases related to French and German companies but I don't feel like digging any deeper.
 
Yeah, I'm moving on from this one. He's not a domainer, he's a clown. There is nothing to gain from any interaction with him.
 
I personally think he got jacked here and the panelists' excuses as to why a TM on CrownePlaza automatically gains them rights to CrownPlaza are truly bizarre and I doubt these would stand scrutiny today. This was in 2005, when rogue panelists ruled the Earth and social media was still in a nascent stage.
I don't think its bizarre, and I do think it would still end in the same result, if filed the same way. That case got the correct result, but I agree it was poorly executed by the panelist to get there. Clearly the domain and mark are clearly confusingly similar considering the spelling is off by one silent character. Its tough to argue that the domain was not a simple case of typo squatting, and rather was generic in nature. Crown (or Crowne) and Plaza don't naturally go together for any reason other than its trademarked usage. If it was truly generic in nature, there would be other instances of it being used by other existing domains and businesses as well, which of course it wasn't, so no such defense could be made. Furthermore, the registrant didn't make any attempt to help himself by providing any seemingly logical evidence as to a good faith reason why he registered that domain, or what it was to be used for. Evidence of the pattern of similar TM squatting registrations was most certainly the nail in the coffin required to prove bad faith in the mind of the panelist. However, it was a big mistake (IMO) on the panelist's part to not mention this fact to further establish bad faith, and instead, relied solely on the "offered it for sale" argument which is very weak (especially at a price less than the cost of a dispute!). He probably ignored it because he figured that's all he needed and that had he went down the "pattern of bad faith" evidence path, that would require more work and explanation which he was probably too lazy to thoroughly do. IMHO, it was ultimately the right decision, but poorly executed by taking what he thought was the easiest route to establish enough bad faith to justify the result. And that might have set or reinforced a poor precedent for other cases.
 
That case got the correct result, but I agree it was poorly executed by the panelist to get there.

That's the problem with a lot of CDRPs, they feel like they want to "do the right thing" but they do it in an underhanded and blatantly corporate manner.

Essentially they try to fit a square peg into a round hole, stating for the sake of expediency that "it fits perfectly!", rather than using their meagre brains to shave off the corners first. Then we have a pile of idiots trying to use that equally-idiotic decision to steal domains from their rightful owners.
 

Support our sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free for everyone.

New Discussion Posts

CatchDrop.ca

New Market Posts

Google Ad

Popular This Week

CIRA.ca

Popular This Month

Google Ad

Back