However, Complainant failed to bring that proof to the Panel.” Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP says this: b. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: …(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” According to the Panel, Pearson hadn’t adduced evidence to this effect. At the date of writing this post, still redirects to and let’s not forget that is now an Automattic property.That historic conflict must, in my view, colour the analysis of whether the name was being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
However, Complainant failed to bring that proof to the Panel.” Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP says this: b. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: …Tags: Underground Railroad Research Paper Outline123 Help Me EssayBiomedical Model Of Health And EssaySmu Assignments1984 Essay LanguageMarketing AssignmentsScientific Method Of Solving ProblemsFinancials Business Plan
Therefore, the Panel declines to find that [Automattic] actually operates the domain name is common and generic/descriptive, and therefore, [Pearson] does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term on the Internet.
Contrary to [Automattic’s] position, the appropriate authority registered THESIS as a mark and [Pearson] established those legal rights to that mark.
The left sidebar states expressly that it’s the “home to the Automattic Theme Division”.
The other point to note is that the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP are not an exhaustive list of the scenarios in which bad faith might be found.
That is the effect of the words “but without limitation”.
I noted at the outset that the UDRP dispute resolution process has it roots in contract.
Note also that 0,000 is a lot of money to pay for an allegedly generic domain name that has no obvious connection with Automattic’s business.
It would be interesting to see Automattic’s domain name inventory.
The key facts seem to be these: Now, as Jeff noted in his post, paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: that is because Pearson failed to bring sufficient proof to show that Automattic registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
It’s important, in my view, to look at what the Panel actually said. The Panel finds that [Pearson] established a prima facie case in support of its arguments that [Automattic] lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), which showing is light. However, [Automattic’s] offer draws the Panel’s attention to a troublesome area.