“The Panel notes that the Respondent’s use of the Website to host various sponsored links can constitute a bona fide offering of services capable of giving rise to rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of the Policy, particularly where the Disputed Domain Name is used in a descriptive (and not trade mark) sense, to describe the sponsored links hosted”

“Given the wide meaning of the word “libertad” (“freedom”) and the consequent versatility of its application, the Panel finds it difficult to accept any argument that the Disputed Domain Name is not descriptive of the various sponsored links hosted on the Website, particularly in the context of employment, which is the subject matter to which numerous links on the Website relate.”

“The Panel also notes the absence of any evidence of use of the Disputed Domain Name or the Website in a trade mark sense, given that the Website content appears, at least as at the date of this decision, to be automatically generated (with different sponsored links appearing with each refreshed view of the Website) rather than predetermined by the Respondent.”

“The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has not satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.”

via Telepathy Beats Back UDRP On Libertad.com But Doesn’t Find Reverse Hijacking Or Latches After 12 Years | The Domains.

Stocker isn’t waiting around for a UDRP panel to determine the domain’s fate. He has sent a notice (pdf) to My Vault Services demanding that they withdraw the complaint. If not, he’s going to seek restitution including legal fees.

Sometimes complainants look at UDRP as a relatively safe crapshoot to go after a domain. If they lose, what’s the big deal? They’re just out a few thousand dollars.

But this isn’t always the case. I know of one domain investor who filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment after merely receiving a cease and desist letter.

via MyVault.com: Inside a UDRP – Domain Name Wire.

ICANN’s cybersquatting rules, including the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, will be reviewed and possibly reformed, but probably not until 2016 at the earliest.The Generic Names Supporting Organization Council voted last Thursday to put the start of UDRP reform on hold until 18 months after the first new top-level domains go live.The review will also take into account other cybersquatting policies including Uniform Rapid Suspension, which will be binding on all new gTLD registries but has yet to be be tested.

via UDRP reform put on hold for four years | DomainIncite – Domain Name News & Opinion.

But why ConAcademy.com?
According to the Whois info, ConAcademy.com was registered October 28, 2010. That’s only a few weeks after Google announced a $2M prize to Khan Academy as part of their Project 10^100 and about a month and half after Sal’s Fortune article. … [visit site to read more]

When is a typo not a typo?

Is eHelper.com a typo of EdHelper.com? Yes, according to National Arbitration Forum panelist Sandra J. Franklin.

In a decision handed down yesterday, Franklin awarded the domain name eHelper.com to the owner of EdHelper.com. It’s a strange decision since eHelper is fundamentally different than EdHelper. It’s not a typo in the same way EdHlper.com would be, and eHelper.com is a legitimate, stand alone name for a possible web site. It’s like saying that Domains.com is a typo of iDomains.com because it omits one letter. Or Bay.com is a typo of eBay.com.

Even in the examples of typosquatting cases Franklin gives, they were all clear cut cases, whereas this is completely different. In her decision, she wrote:

Complainant argues that Respondent’s ehelper.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EDHELPER mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name merely deletes a letter from Complainant’s mark and adds the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) extension “.com.” The Panel finds that the mere deletion of a letter from Complainant’s EDHELPER mark results in confusing similarity for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Guinness UDV N. Am., Inc. v. Dallas Internet Servs., D2001-1055 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2001) (finding the smirnof.com domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s SMIRNOFF mark because merely removing the letter “f” from the mark was insignificant); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding that the neimanmacus.com domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark and was a classic example of typosquatting, which was evidence that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark).

It didn’t help that the owner of eHelper.com didn’t respond to the complaint. But finding typosquatting in this case is quite a stretch. Perhaps it’s an example cut-and-paste arbitration.

© DomainNameWire.com 2009.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Related posts:

1. Can a Three Letter Domain Be a Typo?
2. DomainTools Typo Generator Protects Your Brand
3. Bloomberg Loses Domain Name Dispute