Tag: Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy

Categories
News

Panel denies Salesforce the name Forces.com in domain dispute

Force.com

After filing a complaint (Case No. 1416951) with the National Arbitration Forum last month against Internet Venture Holdings (IVH) over Forces.com, Salesforce.com has been denied the domain name.

Not surprisingly, the panel found that <forces.com> was not identical or confusingly similar to any mark in which Salesforce.com has rights.  As a result, the name was ordered to remain with its owner Internet Venture Holdings (IVH) and will not be transferred to Salesforce.com.

Because the panel concluded that the domain was not identical or confusingly similar, it didn’t bother establishing whether IVH had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; or whether the domain had been registered and was being used in bad faith.

There was also no finding of reverse domain hijacking.

If Salesforce.com really wants a generic domain, they should pay the asking price, not bully smaller companies.

Full details of the panel’s decision can be read online here.

Categories
News

Linkdin.com cyber squatter throws away $22K, domain now belongs to LinkedIn

Linkdin.com WHOIS

Back in December, LinkedIn filed a complaint (Case No. 1417534) with the National Arbitration Forum over the typo domain LinkdIn.com (missing an ‘e’). 

The web address redirected consumers to an online scam that asked a handful of questions and attempted to gather personal information by promising free gifts like a $1,000 Walmart gift card, to anyone who finished filling out the survey.

The owner learned an expensive lesson after they allegedly paid $22,000 to the buy the domain at SnapNames in July 2010.

Now, the domain name belongs to LinkedIn (WHOIS).

LinkedIn withdrew the domain dispute in late December.  It appears the respondent in the case agreed to turn over the name without waiting for a panel to order the name transferred.

It’s unknown whether LinkedIn paid any amount of money to expedite the transfer of the domain, but it’s unlikely, considering LinkedIn was pretty much guaranteed a win.

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News

LinkedIn files dispute over typosquatting domain LinkdIn.com that sold for $22K

LinkdIn.com

There have been a lot of disputes filed recently over typosquatting domain names that mislead consumers.  LinkedIn is now the latest company to file a complaint (Case No. 1417534) with the National Arbitration Forum over a popular typo domain – LinkdIn.com (missing the ‘e’).

What makes this case so interesting, and so expensive for one party, is that the current owner paid $22,000 USD to the buy the domain at SnapNames back in July 2010.  

SnapNames, which was founded in 2000 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oversee.net, operates one of the largest auction marketplaces of expired and deleting domain names.  The website also allows domain owners to sell names out of their own portfolio.

Mike Berkens of The Domains wrote about the sale last year on his domain industry news blog saying, “Its amazing in this day and age there are so many people willing to pay this kind of money for a domain that would be taken in a UDRP if a complaint is filed.”

It’s highly probable now with the dispute filed, that the domain will be taken.

Today, people who accidentally enter LinkdIn.com (the incorrect spelling) into their web browser instead of LinkedIn.com (the correct spelling), are redirected to a survey scam that asked a series of questions and attempts to gather personal information by promising free gifts like a $1,000 Walmart gift card, as shown in the screenshot above of the LinkdIn site.

Knowing also that LinkedIn Corporation has several registered LinkedIn trademarks, it should be no surprise that LinkedIn is pretty much guaranteed to win the dispute.

As Mike Berkens wrote over a year ago, “Yes I know the domain has traffic,  but its a bang on typo trademark domain with no other conceivable meaning.”

The panel with the National Arbitration Forum will determine whether the disputed domain meets the following three elements:

(1) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights
(2) the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and;
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 

If all three elements are met, the domain will be ordered transferred to LinkedIn Corporation. 

The truth of the matter is, it should be a quick open-and-shut case in favor of LinkedIn.

Categories
Disputes National Arbitration Forum News

SalesForce.com attempts to hijack Forces.com by filing domain dispute

Marc Benioff Salesforce.com

Earlier this month, SalesForce.com filed a complaint (Case No. 1416951) with the National Arbitration Forum against Internet Venture Holdings (IVH) over the domain Forces.com.

While complainants in disputes filed with the National Arbitration Forum aren’t revealed until a panel delivers a decision, I contacted IVH to see if my suspicions were correct “that Salesforce.com was behind the complaint” and an IVH representative confirmed via e-mail that, indeed, Salesforce.com was the complainant.

What’s interesting about this case – and this isn’t unheard of – is that Salesforce.com not only has a good chance of losing the dispute, but it may face a claim of “reverse domain hijacking”.

If the software giant loses the dispute and IVH contends that Salesforce.com engaged in ‘reverse domain hijacking’, Salesforce.com could be labeled a “reverse hijacker” by the presiding panel.  “Reverse domain hijacking” is found if the company knew or should have known at the time that it filed the complaint, that it could not prove that forces.com was registered in bad faith. 

Though Salesforce.com has publicly acquired domain names in the past for large sums of money such as the purchase of Data.com for over $1.5 million, it doesn’t mean the company won’t bully smaller companies into giving up their domains if it doesn’t feel like paying the seller’s asking price.

Unfortunately, a finding of reverse domain hijacking likely won’t mean much punishment in terms of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

According to sources online:

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not expressly recognize reverse domain name hijacking and often only limits defendants’ recovery to retention or transference of the domain name. It also fails to provide any remedies for victims of attempted reverse cybersquatting. However, the statute permits some monetary relief where bad faith, reckless disregard or the willful violation of a court order are involved.

However, if Salesforce.com decides it still wants to acquire the domain after being labeled a “reverse hijacker”, the ball will definitely be in IVH’s court, who own hundreds of other prized, generic domains like Coast.com and Turquoise.com.

Even if Salesforce.com loses the dispute (which it should) and somehow avoids the hijacking label, I don’t see this ending well for Salesforce.com.

(Photo of Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com via Flickr)