The National Arbitration Forum gives the company a second bite of the apple, but it fails again.
Camco Manufacturing, Inc. failed a second time to obtain the domain name Camco.com via a UDRP.
The company, which uses the camco.net domain, filed its first UDRP against the domain in 2011. It had no registered trademarks at the time, nor does it allege common law rights. He lost the UDRP, but for some reason the National Arbitration Forum panel said the case was dismissed “without prejudice.”
So Camco tried again in 2022, this time armed with federal trademark registrations.
But the panel once again sided with estate owner Brian Wick. Wick successfully argued that he had legitimate rights or interests in the area.
The panel wrote:
… Irrespective of Plaintiff’s trademark rights, the Panel – based on its assessment of the extensive evidence presented by Respondent – agrees with Respondent that the term “camco” is a commonly used term. Indeed, the term was commonly used by several parties at the time the domain was registered. Further, Complainant has not provided any evidence to show that Respondent was targeting Complainant specifically or that Respondent had reason to expect Complainant to have exclusive rights to the term when the disputed domain name has been registered. And even now, the plaintiff’s rights are not exclusive, except with respect to the limited class of goods for which the mark was registered.
Respondent presents ample evidence showing that many third parties have rights and a legitimate interest in domain names that incorporate the term “camco”. The Panel finds that Respondent also has a legitimate right and interest to use the term “camco” for other classes, or for the same classes but in different jurisdictions, or to sell it to others who may have such rights. Indeed, according to WIPO’s Overview 3.0, Section 2.1, “generally speaking, panels accepted that the aggregation and holding of domain names (usually for resale) consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common expressions may be bona fide and are not inherently illegitimate under the UDRP.
Respondent further submits that it has legitimate rights and interests in the domain name by the nature of its business of buying and selling generic domain names. Respondent provided evidence containing, among other things, screenshots of its business at , the center of Respondent’s trading network of generic domain names for sale. Under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, previous panels have concluded that the resale of generic domain names is considered a bona fide offer of goods or services. See Alphalogix Inc. v. DNS Servs., FA 491557 (Forum July 26, 2005) (“Defendant is in the business of creating and supplying names for new entities, including acquiring expired domain names…
Tuggle Duggins PA represented Camco Manufacturing in both disputes.
Comments are closed.