With .CO domain names now available to register for almost a year, I did some research on the number of UDRP cases for ccTLD domain names filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization so far in 2011. These numbers don’t reflect the actual number of domain names, but just the number of cases filed (doesn’t differ by much but pointing it out).

On forums, my blog, and elsewhere, I read people’s comments about how .CO domain names would make for a field day for trademark and IP attorneys, and I did a brief analysis to see if this assumption is true to date, at least in terms of the number of UDRP filings so far in 2011 at WIPO.

Based only on assumptions, one would be likely to assume that there would be hundreds of UDRP filings because .CO is so close to .com. One might also assume that .CO would have far more UDRP filings than every other extension. While .CO did have more UDRP filings than almost all other ccTLDs that are listed at WIPO, I was personally surprised to see that .NL has the most UDRP filings in 2011. In my opinion, this assumption is proven to be wrong, at least so far.

One thing you’ll note is that not all ccTLDs are listed below. A number of popular ccTLD registries have their own dispute policies, such as .CA’s CDRP or Nominet’s DRS (.co.uk) as examples.

ccTLD UDRP filings in 2011 at WIPO:

• .AE – 0
• .AG – 0
• .AM – 0
• .AS – 0
• .AU – 16
• .BR – 1
• .BZ – 0
• .CC – 3
• .CD – 0
• .CH – 10
• .CO – 37
• .CV – 0
• .CY – 0
• .DO – 1
• .EC – 0
• .ES – 31
• .FJ – 1
• .FR – 17
• .GT – 0
• .IE – 2
• .IR – 1
• .KY – 1
• .LA – 0
• .LC – 0
• .LI – 0
• .MA – 0
• .ME – 5
• .MX – 19
• .NL – 44
• .NU – 1
• .PA – o
• .PE – 1
• .PH – 3
• .RO – 5
• .SC – 1
• .SO – 1
• .TK – 0
• .TM – o
• .TV – 6
• .VE – 1
• .WS – 1

In March, I reported that the Cleveland Browns had filed a UDRP for Browns.com, and the UDRP decision was released today. The single panelist, Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman, found in favor of the Cleveland Browns, and the domain name will be transferred to the football team ownership, barring any litigation.

The respondent, a resident of Italy, did not provide a response to the UDRP. This seems to have played a role in the decision as the panelist stated, “The Respondent has not offered any such refutation, or replied at all, and the Panel is not aware from the evidence of any means by which the Respondent could succeed under the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise, to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

In my opinion, if the respondent doesn’t give a good reason for why he has a right to the domain name, I don’t think it should be expected for the panelist to find a reason on his own, especially in light of other information provided in the UDRP proceeding.

One piece of evidence that seriously doomed the respondent’s chances was the usage of the Wayback Machine, found at Archive.org. According to the decision, “In 2005, specific references and links appeared, to among other things, “Cleveland Browns”, “Cleveland Browns Tickets” and “National Football League”. By 2006, there were additional references to associated merchandise and to other football clubs, with similar content through 2009. The Complainant has produced evidence of content strongly impinging on its trademark and activities until January 4, 2011, interspersed with some periods of inactivity.”

It should be noted that there is a way for domain owners to get archived information removed from Archive.org, but that’s a topic for another post. This is important in the event a domain owner purchases a name from someone who may have previously infringed on the rights of another company.

One interesting facet of the decision was that there was a name change in the Whois between the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. While some panelists may have used this information to say that it was a new registration and not consider the real registration date, which is bad for domain owners, this panelist provided some rationale for a possible Whois registrant contact change:

“One possible interpretation of the facts of the present case is that the disputed domain name may have remained within the same entity, under the same guiding mind, before and after the registrant, administrative, technical and billing contacts were changed from “Gioacchino Zerbo” to “Andrea Denise Dinoia” on or before January 12, 2011; and therefore a new registration did not occur with that event.”

In my interpretation of the decision, the fact that there were football related links, specifically related to the complainant’s Cleveland Browns, coupled with the fact that the respondent didn’t respond to the UDRP, the panelist didn’t have much of a choice.

We’ll see if litigation is filed prior to the change of registrant, but it appears the Cleveland Browns will be able to move from ClevelandBrowns.com to Browns.com.

I really hate seeing UDRP filings for three letter .com domain names. In my opinion, three letter acronyms usually have many different meanings, and it’s generally tough to say who would have a right to own the name.

I was checking the World Intellectual Property Organization’s website to see what UDRP filings have been recently made, and I saw one for the seemingly descriptive PPD.com. According to the filing report, Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. and Pharmaco Investments, Inc. filed a UDRP for PPD.com in mid-April.

In looking at a historical thumbnail of PPD.com, I don’t see how the domain name is infringing upon this company’s brand. In fact, there seems there was even a vulgar message splashed across the front (see historical thumbnail from May 2008). At the present time, PPD.com looks to be a standard parking page without much of a focus on a particular industry, so it doesn’t jump out at me as to why the company thinks they deserve the domain name.

Some PPD uses/meanings/acronyms:

• Postponed
• Stock ticker for Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
• PPD Worldwide
• PPD, Inc.
• Points Per Day
• Philadelphia Police Department
• Post Partum Depression

AcronymFinder.com found a total of 71 meanings for PPD, including some of those mentioned above, and also including the name of the company that filed the UDRP.

This will be an interesting case to follow since I don’t believe the domain name is being used in bad faith (at least in my opinion). I’ve never heard of the company that filed the complaint, and it might be tough to prove a bad faith registration.

In January, I reported that a company called Lorenzo International had filed a UDRP for the domain name, Lorenzo.com. This domain name is owned by Tucows and is a part of the company’s NetIdentity suite of first and last name domain names, some of which have been the subject of successfully defended UDRP filings in the past.

According to the discussion in the UDRP decision (not yet available online), the company’s usage of Lorenzo.com is legitimate, and the complaint was denied. From the UDRP decision:

“there is no evidence that the Respondent’s continuing use of the domain name in the same way in connection with its Personal Names Service is not bona fide. The Respondent states that it was not aware of the Complainant or of its claim to trademark rights until it received the Complaint. The Complainant has therefore demonstrated that prior to any notice to it of the dispute it used the disputed domain name in the bona fide offering of its services.”

Based on prior results of similar cases, it’s not really surprising to me that Tucows prevailed in this UDRP. As a domain owner, it’s frustrating to see another UDRP case filed where one company thinks it has more rights to a descriptive domain name than the registrant.

A three person panel with Desmond J. Ryan AM, Dan Hunter, and David E. Sorkin ruled on this UDRP decision. Tucows was represented by AlvaradoSmith.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the current labor situation in the National Football League, the Cleveland Browns have filed a UDRP for the Browns.com domain name.  The cellar-dwelling Browns, who finished 5-11 last season, use ClevelandBrowns.com for its website.

Browns.com has been owned by a registrant in Italy for a number of years. The Whois History results for this domain name go back to 2003, and it appears to me that it’s been owned by the same entity. At the moment, Browns.com does not resolve.

It does look like there might have been football-related links on the domain name at one point, although the owner may not have control over what links were displayed. I find it strange that the football team has taken so long to file a UDRP for the name though, since they must have known another entity has owned it for so many years.