https://ciidrc.org/wp-content/uploa...ted-Decision-ycd.ca-September-22-2022-SGD.pdf
The owner wanted no less than $10,000 and these guys offered $3,000. They went with Plan B and filed UDRP and got the domain.
YCD.ca Transferred To Complainant (1.Viewing)
- Topic Starter silentg
- Start date
- Replies: Replies 49
- Views: Views 3,364
https://ciidrc.org/wp-content/uploa...ted-Decision-ycd.ca-September-22-2022-SGD.pdf
The owner wanted no less than $10,000 and these guys offered $3,000. They went with Plan B and filed UDRP and got the domain.
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
That is complete BS.
Lurker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2022
- Topics
- 11
- Posts
- 106
- Likes
- 53
This is apparently the nail in the coffin:
“The evidence of the Wayback Machine shows that from January 2014 it carried depictions of an airliner taking off and an airliner landing and the words “Arrivals” and “Departures”. The Registrant at one point stated that Voodoo was responsible for the content of whatever web page it was that was captured by the Wayback Machine. It certainly showed that someone was well aware that the domain name had a connection with an airport and the arrival and departure of aircraft. The icons of the aircraft look suspiciously like a promotion of the domain name and its possible sale on the basis that it is connected with an airport and that it might be of particular value and interest to someone connected with airports, airlines or aviation or merely someone who would like to make money from it.
The Panel’s concern is that this evidence has appeared, but with no explanation from the Registrant as to whether he knew about it or did anything to deter it. As the evidence shows this landing page with the “arrival” and “departure” buttons had been hosted at the domain name for some time, the Panel is prepared to infer that the Registrant was aware of it. Clearly, the Panel is limited in the conclusions it can reach on the limited evidence, but the icons on the web page to which the domain name resolved, only weaken the Registrant’s case that his buying and keeping and offering the domain name for sale had nothing to with its being the IATA code for Nanaimo Airport.”
“The evidence of the Wayback Machine shows that from January 2014 it carried depictions of an airliner taking off and an airliner landing and the words “Arrivals” and “Departures”. The Registrant at one point stated that Voodoo was responsible for the content of whatever web page it was that was captured by the Wayback Machine. It certainly showed that someone was well aware that the domain name had a connection with an airport and the arrival and departure of aircraft. The icons of the aircraft look suspiciously like a promotion of the domain name and its possible sale on the basis that it is connected with an airport and that it might be of particular value and interest to someone connected with airports, airlines or aviation or merely someone who would like to make money from it.
The Panel’s concern is that this evidence has appeared, but with no explanation from the Registrant as to whether he knew about it or did anything to deter it. As the evidence shows this landing page with the “arrival” and “departure” buttons had been hosted at the domain name for some time, the Panel is prepared to infer that the Registrant was aware of it. Clearly, the Panel is limited in the conclusions it can reach on the limited evidence, but the icons on the web page to which the domain name resolved, only weaken the Registrant’s case that his buying and keeping and offering the domain name for sale had nothing to with its being the IATA code for Nanaimo Airport.”
I was aware of this coming and the complainant had a strong trademark but it was not even for the name of the airport.
Yes the parked page was a problem but for me the problem is that owning a domain for commerce (as in domaining) is not looked at as legitimate when it has been legitimized in UDRP's.
Chris is a member here and I can tell you this weighed a bit on him, but the 3 letters had very little to no other legitimate application which made it difficult to defend.
The other issue is the fact that the domain itself was not worth a lot in resale and had Chris hired a lawyer he would have received a significant bill which probably would not have paid off in the end.
This decision is a shame all the way around and it can have implications for many members here with generic 3 or 4 letter domains.
Yes the parked page was a problem but for me the problem is that owning a domain for commerce (as in domaining) is not looked at as legitimate when it has been legitimized in UDRP's.
Chris is a member here and I can tell you this weighed a bit on him, but the 3 letters had very little to no other legitimate application which made it difficult to defend.
The other issue is the fact that the domain itself was not worth a lot in resale and had Chris hired a lawyer he would have received a significant bill which probably would not have paid off in the end.
This decision is a shame all the way around and it can have implications for many members here with generic 3 or 4 letter domains.
domains
DomainMedia.ca
interesting, I wouldn't think an airport code would be protected by a trademark, more like a public domain thing. Did the parked page have ads on it? What about if it had been an information page about the airport - kind of like a fan site? If the domain owner didn't contact the airport about selling the domain it seems a bit of a harsh decision.
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
I believe this is a unique case where the airport actually uses the TM YCD. In most cases the airports in Canada are not using their airport code. If they are, it comes as an after thought.
Although Toronto airport code is YYZ it has always went by Pearson international. I still don’t believe this decision is fair as there are alternate uses of domains. I’ve also had issues with Voodoo displaying ads without my knowledge. One of the reasons I dropped parking many years ago!
Although Toronto airport code is YYZ it has always went by Pearson international. I still don’t believe this decision is fair as there are alternate uses of domains. I’ve also had issues with Voodoo displaying ads without my knowledge. One of the reasons I dropped parking many years ago!
rlm
Bonfire.ca
Ugh, I hate seeing decisions like this. If you're here and you're getting hassled by a CDRP or threat of a CDRP on an arguably generic domain, please contact me for some free advice... It can't hurt, I can usually find some additional good points to make in your response.
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
Is there any recourse here?
Any way to challenge the decision without spending a fortune?
Any way to challenge the decision without spending a fortune?
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
This transfer is very aggravating the more I think about it. So because we don’t use domains as they wish we don’t have a legitimate interest? I like how in that Twitter post they mention 8 years without using domain. So what? I’ve gone 25 years without using domains. Does that mean you’re entitled to steal domains and claim bad faith?
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
Court…that’s the only way. But is it worth it? Maybe for this specific domain no…but when will this end ? Now new CDRP’s will be quoting this nonsense case and decision.
rlm
Bonfire.ca
And that is the real problem...
theinvestor
DNCanada.ca
I’m not really a fan of this comment. If every domain you own was worth a few thousand bucks I’m sure you’d be pretty happy. I would be a multi-millionaire. But, keep in mind this domain might be worth only a few thousand in your eyes but I guarantee it was worth a lot to the new owners. So, in this case the registrant not only got screwed out of that, but the resolution process profits off the name rather than the owner of the domain. This was swept from under him in my opinion with no good reason.
Lurker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2022
- Topics
- 11
- Posts
- 106
- Likes
- 53
What is CIRA’s stand on domain reselling? I tried reading the CDRP policy but could not find investment and/or reselling (even for generic terms and acronyms) as basis for legitimate interest in a domain. Do CIRA members have a voice on what CDRP guidelines should include?
davidm
BusinessRegistration.ca
Maybe there is recourse. A small claims court case can be filed for damages from the loss of the domain name and for the tort of misrepresentation.
Alternatively, a Superior Court of Justice case can overturn the decision and get the domain name back.
The key question is whether domain registrants have legitimate interests in domains comprising acronyms.
The side question is whether airports own trademark rights in their IATA codes. Research this well before filing a court claim.
rlm
Bonfire.ca
Regardless, trademark rights have limitations. Unless there is actual infringement occurring, the trademark should only establish the complainant's interest, nothing else.
rlm
Bonfire.ca
BTW:
1. CIRA themselves acknowledges the aftermarket, they occasional post aftermarket sales data on their website.
2. CIRA profits from the aftermarket. The entire purpose of TBR is for CIRA and their registrars to profit from domain resales at aftermarket (above retail) type pricing. CIRA profits by charging registrars fees for participating in TBR.
3. CIRA has bought domains they wanted for their own use in the aftermarket themselves.
1. CIRA themselves acknowledges the aftermarket, they occasional post aftermarket sales data on their website.
2. CIRA profits from the aftermarket. The entire purpose of TBR is for CIRA and their registrars to profit from domain resales at aftermarket (above retail) type pricing. CIRA profits by charging registrars fees for participating in TBR.
3. CIRA has bought domains they wanted for their own use in the aftermarket themselves.
Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |