Acro.net – Technology Rants & Raves by Acroplex®

BuyDomains was served with a third UDRP in a week, according to Mike Berkens at TheDomains.

I’m not in the least surprised and I’ll explain why.

It’s a game of numbers. It’s pure statistics at work: the more domains one owns – assuming that they are spread naturally and are not intentional, blatant trademark violations – the chances of being served with a UDRP are higher.

With four million domains in its portfolio, BuyDomains is definitely a large player in the market. During the past few years, BuyDomains liquidated several thousand domains and released a few more. But the bulk of its portfolio has been held for years.

Sometimes, trademark holders or those who believe they have a case don’t wait any longer. Corporate lawyers change and younger, more aggressive legal teams take over the game of intimidation.

On top of that, BuyDomains monetizes its domains in a manner that gives plenty of fodder to those companies that witness their products, brands or those of competitors appear as ads on the web sites.

So it’s not really a surprise that those recent cases saw the light of domaining day. Domain investment carries its risk and BuyDomains has recorded plenty of success to prove that such investment is worth it.

I just came across this WIPO case with regards to the domain name Aspis.com

It would have been a typical case, if it weren’t for the fact that I actually visited the web site back in 1998 when it was registered; its purpose has always been to gripe against the (then) CEO of Aspis Pronoia, an insurance company in Greece.

Not only does the .com registration predate the complainant’s Swedish mark by 8 years, it’s also a generic, dictionary, ancient Greek word that means “shield”.

So some Swedish meatball comes to claim a mark that’s three thousand years old, and only one of the 3 panelists – Mr. G. Gervaise Davis III – had the guts to engage full vision, unlike the other two panelists.

Indeed, it’s alarming to see that the WIPO system is far from flawless and that there is no fair and balanced measure of what constitutes “legitimate use” and “bad faith”.