As a developer myself, I find this troublesome, as I park domains until I get around to developing them.. not good at all...
Yes, this ruling is extremley profound, and puts the whole notion of parking in question. It appears that the judge ruled that because the respondent did not show any interest in the domain, then the respondent had no claim, even though there was not any strict trademark infringement. On the contrary, there couldn't have been any trademark infringement, since there was nothing on the site.
I am surprised there has not been more discussion about this on this and other like forums. I appreciate Elliot bringing this to our attention. I am looking forward to more comments.
I also blogged about it a few weeks ago regarding non-use: http://www.elliotsblog.com/index.php...a-domain-name/..
Very interesting but I really doubt that his advice would work as if the Judges start to see parking as "not interest in the domain" and countering an offer like "greed and cibersquatting" then I really doubt that forcing the enquirer to such a signature would clear seller`s liabilities.
Maybe it`s about time some kind of Domainer Legal Association comes up?..
Another good blog.
In the Michelson case, I think the Respondent ran into trouble when he claimed that he purchased the name to run an abortion related site, but in 10 years never did anything to this end. I would think that the Complainant's case was also very weak, but the judge seem to rule against the Respondent because the Respondent's case made no sense at all. This is a ruling that domain parkers need to understand.
There have been, actually. It's just that they got buried under the subsequent.
And more interesting threads.
John B said in one of those discussions this thing is really panelist-dependent..
I have had no reason to doubt that since then...
Thanks. Can you refer me to the previous threads. I must have missed them, since I generally check quite often into the legal section of this forum.
I was actually quite surprised that the courts took such a stance. The Respondent had held the name for quite some time without any complaints. The parked domain did not seem to infringe on the Trademark of Michelson. What the court found, was that the domain can be taken away because it was not developed and being used. This is quite a new concept for me. I often read discussions where the thread is about parking vs.
I agree with this entirely. I think most other parts of the opinion were, effectively, filler. If the Respondent had done anything with the name, he probably could have won...
It's one decision out of thousands. I wouldn't get too excited over a single UDRP ruling, since they have no precedential value. Over time, some are cited more often than others, but these things are fact-intensive and panelist dependent.
If you wanted to argue that you registered a last name for, say, geneological type ads, and those are what was displayed there over time, that's fine.
But if you want to argue that you've been keeping it for some reason relating to a political figure of minor note some years ago, and did nothing with it for ages, then the panel is going to be skeptical...