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.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization website’s list of pending UDRP filings, Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation / Six Continents Hotels, Inc. filed a UDRP for 1,529 domain names that they believe infringe on some of their hotel brands. Names such as candlewood-braintree.com, holiday-inn-dfw-north.com, los-angeles-commerce-casino.com, and staybridge-bwi-airport.com were registered by what appears to be one party, Unister GmbH (although I only searched a random assortment of these domain names).

It appears that many of these domain name I searched were registered recently – in mid to late 2009. For example, staybridge-suites-reno.com was registered July 21, 2009, hotel-indigo-london-paddington.com was registered May 23, 2009, and holiday-memphis-hacks.com was registered July 21, 2009.

To possibly make a defense even more difficult for the domain registrant, it appears that some of the names I searched are listed for sale at Sedo (holiday-inn-universal-studios.com for example), and I would think the Complainant could allege this to be a sign of bad faith.

The names I searched all appear to have a hotel booking engine on them, and when dates of stay are entered into the appropriate fields, visitors are redirected to HotelReservation.com, which appears to be owned by the entity that owns the other domain names I searched.

I can never predict what a UDRP panel is going to decide, but if the panel awards all of the domain names to the Complainant, that could mean a loss of upwards of $11,000 assuming a registration cost of $7.25. Ouch.

I was reading Mike’s Blog today about WIPO wanting domain registrars to be held responsible for their registrants’ trademark infringing domain names, and I give it a thumbs up.  In fact, I said the same thing back in March of 2008, “Registrars Should Help Prevent Cybersquatting.”

I believe that many people register domain names that have trademarks in them without really knowing the risks involved. When I first started buying domain names circa 2003-04, there were a few trademark names that I purchased.  I didn’t know the legalities of this, and when I found out, I canceled the few that I owned and bought back a few that I had sold, and cancelled them, too.  Although the likelihood of getting sued for names I created out of thin air was small, I didn’t want to deal with them.

I do understand why some companies invest in trademark domain names that receive traffic and generate revenue. It’s a business decision that some companies have to make, but in most cases, new registrations are way more of a liability than a profitable business.  I cringe when I see names for sale on Ebay like MicrosoftProductDownloads.com (or something similar), because they are screaming at Microsoft to file a lawsuit (this one happens to be unregistered). I attribute some of these new registrations and sale attempts to people who aren’t aware of the legal ramifications and liabilty a name like this can have.

I think the domain registrars should be a bit more responsible when it comes to names that are obvious trademarks.  Sure, there is a considerable gray area, but if they were required to warn registrants about potentially infringing domain names (like the Surgeon General warns smokers), there would be a lot less cybersquatting – and consequently less revenue for the registrars.

Upon further review, back in July of 2007, when I first started blogging, I said the following, and I still agree with it today (aside from the term “crime” as it’s not technically criminal).

In my opinion, a majority of trademark inclusive domain names aren’t owned by malicious people, but rather those who don’t know it is against the law. As a measure against unlawfully registering a domain name with a trademark, what if registrars required consumers to check off a box acknowledging that they are aware of the Lanham Act and its penalties before every registration? Perhaps even a brief summary of the law along with the possible penalties of owning/selling/profiting from a trademarked name would act as a deterrent to people who may be unknowingly committing a crime.

I believe the sooner we police our industry, the better things will be for us all.

It appears that the Ohio Democratic Party believes that Senator John McCain will select Tom Ridge as his Vice Presidential running mate. According to the Whois database, on August 18th, Todd Hoffman from the Ohio Democratic Party registered the domain name McCainRidge.net. At the moment, the domain name resolves to a generic Godaddy landing page with links to John McCain buttons and political messages.

While some people might immediately claim that the Ohio Democratic Party is cybersquatting on this domain name, I would like to point out that there isn’t necessarily any evidence of bad faith in this registration – unlike many others who intend to profit from selling the domain name. Should the Ohio Dems decide to post an anti McCain/Ridge website, their rights to free speech would probably be protected under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, although I am not an attorney.

At the moment, the only entity profiting from the registration is Godaddy who is monetizing the name – presumably unbenounced to the registrant. IMO, the real legal question is this: if the Ohio Democrats utilize their First Amendment rights and they attempt to solicit contributions on the site, would this be considered a bad faith registration, as they are profiting off of a famous name/brand?

I think this is more of a John Berryhill question!

McCainRidge.net Whois Record