"Generic + Generic" safe from WIPO?

[touchring]

"Generic + Generic" + no-trademark safe from WIPO?

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0120.html

"The disputed domain name <supremeruler.com> is registered with Nameview Inc."

"The Complainant developed a computer game called “Supreme Ruler”, “Supreme Ruler Plus” and “Supreme Ruler 2010”. Apparently, the first version of this game was brought out in 1982."

"The Complainant DID NOT register a trademark for SUPREME RULER. Nor was the Respondent the first party to register the domain name <supremeruler.com>, as the domain name was first registered to a third party."

"(3) “The Respondent also makes a misleading claim regarding the results from a search at ‘dictionary.com’ – they provide a definition for ‘ruler’ as a separate word, yet do not mention that in fact dictionary.com contains no entry for the complete phrase ‘supreme ruler’ (see Annex S-3 for this search).”"

"For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, by majority decision, the Panel orders that the domain name, <supremeruler.com> be transferred to the Complainant."

[Drewbert]

That's the problem. UDRP is not based in law at all. It's all loosely worded, and the panel can cherry-pick the stuff out of the complaint and response that they want to use to get a result.

There should also be a time limit on how long a TM holder has to launch a UDRP. Waiting 5 years is ridiculous - that's certainly not proactively protecting your trademark.

The respondent should take this one to court and get it reversed.

[touchring]

For the Panel, there is nothing illicit, in principle, in using descriptive names to attract users to an Internet website for advertising links. However, the Panel was struck with the extent to which the “Supreme Ruler” name is known and is associated with the Complainant on the Internet. Given this strong presence, in this particular case the Respondent’s use of the domain name must generate very considerable traffic that is solely the result of the Complainant’s well-known computer games. Therefore, the Panel finds that the descriptive element is outweighed, in this instance, by the association that the name has with the Complainant in the same way as other common terms are now associated with well-known trademarks.

What this says is that it doesn't matter if a name is "descriptive", as long as traffic came as the result of another website or association??

They also admit "nothing illicit, in principle, in using descriptive names to attract users to an Internet website for advertising links.", but i remembered read some other cases where parking is frown upon??

Btw, has anyone seen the decision on that game.co.uk? The name is generic, there was no parking site, so I thought it was the case of "who has the trademark". I think we'll need to look at it again to see what really went wrong.