UDRP Complainant is “Sorely Misguided”

In World2Work Corporation v Kurt Reuss, NAF Case No. 1214404 (Aug. 18, 2008), Panelist Darryl Wilson lived up to his rapidly-growing reputation as a no-nonsense arbitrator. The domain at issue in that case was fired.com. The complainant held a trademark registration for FIRED, but did not seem to understand that trademarks are not “word patents.”

While it is not normally required that the issue of genericness be resolved in the UDRP proceeding, especially when Complainant is the owner of a valid registration, it is important to address the issue when the mark and the domain consist of one or more common terms. Complainant’s belief that its registration gives it “an exclusive right to use the word ‘FIRED’ in commerce…” and that such use extends to a “right to use that word as a domain name and to register the domain fired.com as its own domain name” is sorely misguided. Trademark rights do not automatically confer domain name rights and vice-versa. Procurement of one right simply provides an improved opportunity for the other.

3 Responses to UDRP Complainant is “Sorely Misguided”

  1. Can we send a copy of this paragraph to all trademark owners? Maybe the PTO can send a copy out with the registration certificate.

  2. David says:

    Somebody got their ass fired…so to speak. :)

  3. David says:

    Oh, and too bad the respondent didn’t ask for reverse domain hijack. This would’ve added to the nth number of RDNH decisions…and counting.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,695 other followers

%d bloggers like this: