CDRP MPCOATINGS.CA vs PPG Industries Ohio, Inc (1.Viewing)

Looks like MPC was able to retain ownership of the domain without responding.

https://www.cira.ca/uploads/2024/09/mpcoatings.ca-Decision-CDRP.pdf

What an idiotic CDRP and that 'paints' the complainant in a very bad light.

They own a TM for 'MPC Mathews Paint' and they launch a premeditated attack on a live business called MPCoatings at mpcoatings.ca just because the domain contains the 3 letters MPC. And yes, there was no response, and the case was a slam dunk against them, but how the hell wasn't that RDNH?

DomainRecap said:

but how the hell wasn't that RDNH?

Click to expand...

Don't think it was needed with no response, the defendant was smart enough to realize they had legitimate use.

MapleDots said:

Don't think it was needed with no response, the defendant was smart enough to realize they had legitimate use.

Click to expand...

But that's the point, response or not, the RDNH is always supposed to be on the table as a deterrent against companies pulling this crap.

Remember, they failed on the very first point, where the panelist determined their TM was not confusingly similar, thereby they has zero case and it was a clear abuse of procedure. On the UDRP, panelists are more fair and equitable, and often dole out the RDNH in non-response cases like this, or at the very least, explain why they didn't hit them with it.

The CDRP, on the other hand, is a corporate-controlled shill game so I was speaking tongue-in-cheek concerning the RDNH - it's obvious why it was not even mentioned. The panelist would probably be disbarred if he breathed even a word of it in front of his corporate overlords.