Cybersquatting & Domain Dispute Lawyer Attorney Law Firm - Cybersquatting Cases Update: Court Ruling in BME.com Cybersquatting Case Highlights Important Factors for Determining Whether a Defendant's Conduct Constitutes Cybersquatting

« XXX.com Domain Name Soon Up for Sale, or Reserve Now for Only $7,000,000 | Main | Trademark and Cybersquatting Lawsuit: Subway Awarded Permanent Injunction, Statutory Damages, and Attorney’s Fees, Against Subway.SY LLC »

2010.07.27

Comments

As the attorney for BME, I would like to correct one statement in this article.

You wrote:

My guess is that Gregory Ricks (former owner of BME.com) transferred his rights over to BMEZINE.com in a bid to demonstrate ‘good faith’ in registering and use of BME.com to the courts.

Mr. Ricks did not transfer the domain voluntarily, nor in any bid to demonstrate good faith.

The domain name was transferred to BME in WIPO case D2008-0882. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0882.html

After that, Mr. Ricks filed in federal court to overturn the outcome of the arbitration decision.

However, to stay the implementation of the decision, he had to file in the Southern District of Florida. For some bizarre and unexplained reason, he chose to file it in the District of Nevada. Since he did not file in the "mutual jurisdiction", the arbitration decision was implemented and the domain was turned over to BME.

This is a very interesting decision for several reasons. The concept that “re-registration” of a domain name constitutes “registration” under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is consistent with the statute’s overall goal and purpose of identifying bad faith cybersquatting. The argument that re-registration after notice of trademark infringement can create an opportunity to argue “bad faith cybersquatting” or require a change of strategy for many brand holders. There’s now a much higher incentive for trademark owners to provide notice of trademark rights and send cease and desist letters alleging trademark infringement in violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act so any re-registration thereafter will be suspect.

It will be interesting whether or not arbitrators under the UDRP pick up this line of reasoning and apply it under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as well.

So Enrico and Attorney team,

Summarize YOUR thoughts on this case please.

thanks Ed - Michigan

The comments to this entry are closed.

Official Trademark Clearinghouse Agent