Disputes about nominal domains
Disputes about domains containing personal names are one of the most difficult for the commission investigating cybersquatting complaints.
The rules state that each user has the right to the domain containing his name. They also say that proper names are equated to vocabulary words, and it is possible to select domains containing them according to a complaint of another person only if he is the owner of a trademark that matches this name. But what is more important - the user's right to register a domain with a name (perhaps his own) or the right of the owner of the brand?
Earlier we talked about the scandalous story with the domain JustinAlexander.com. Recently, two more disputes about named domains have been considered.
In the first of these, the well-known cruise company Aida Cruises could not defend its rights to the domain Aida.me, which its owner purchased for its two-year-old daughter. The Commission initially wondered whose favor it was to make the decision. To prove the purity of his intentions, the domain owner provided a copy of Aida’s birth certificate and proof that he had already registered domains for his relatives. This convinced WIPO that the domain was not registered for cybersquatting purposes.
')
But what the two-year-old managed to do was not succeeded by Viacom’s largest media corporation, Philippe Dauman. The WIPO Commission denied him the rights to the philippepierredauman.com domain. The reason for the refusal was that his name was not registered as a trademark. Consequently, there is no reason for its transfer to another person. Proper names are considered on a par with vocabulary words, and the fact that there is no other equally famous Philip Pierre Dauman, and the domain owner is not his namesake or namesake, can be ignored. Also commission member Richard Lyon, who considered the complaint, referred to the precedents, i.e. other similar disputes in which the same decision was made.
Meanwhile, the domain owner does not even hide that he is going to use it for the placement of video materials, i.e. will use the name of a famous person for his own benefit. Thus, WIPO simply handed over the domain to the cybersquatter. Viacom considered this a misunderstanding and is going to file a complaint again, and if necessary, to get justice in court.
The rules state that each user has the right to the domain containing his name. They also say that proper names are equated to vocabulary words, and it is possible to select domains containing them according to a complaint of another person only if he is the owner of a trademark that matches this name. But what is more important - the user's right to register a domain with a name (perhaps his own) or the right of the owner of the brand?
Earlier we talked about the scandalous story with the domain JustinAlexander.com. Recently, two more disputes about named domains have been considered.
In the first of these, the well-known cruise company Aida Cruises could not defend its rights to the domain Aida.me, which its owner purchased for its two-year-old daughter. The Commission initially wondered whose favor it was to make the decision. To prove the purity of his intentions, the domain owner provided a copy of Aida’s birth certificate and proof that he had already registered domains for his relatives. This convinced WIPO that the domain was not registered for cybersquatting purposes.
')
But what the two-year-old managed to do was not succeeded by Viacom’s largest media corporation, Philippe Dauman. The WIPO Commission denied him the rights to the philippepierredauman.com domain. The reason for the refusal was that his name was not registered as a trademark. Consequently, there is no reason for its transfer to another person. Proper names are considered on a par with vocabulary words, and the fact that there is no other equally famous Philip Pierre Dauman, and the domain owner is not his namesake or namesake, can be ignored. Also commission member Richard Lyon, who considered the complaint, referred to the precedents, i.e. other similar disputes in which the same decision was made.
Meanwhile, the domain owner does not even hide that he is going to use it for the placement of video materials, i.e. will use the name of a famous person for his own benefit. Thus, WIPO simply handed over the domain to the cybersquatter. Viacom considered this a misunderstanding and is going to file a complaint again, and if necessary, to get justice in court.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/194958/
All Articles