Reglikedomain industry desk

A novel approach in UDRP response — HugeDomains uses

A novel approach in UDRP response — HugeDomains uses

Firm used Amazon Turk to survey people regarding the meaning of a term.

Domain name seller HugeDomains used a unique approach in a recent UDRP response.

Oil and gas firm Tenaris Connections BV filed the dispute against the domain Temaris.com, which is one letter off from the firm’s Tenaris.com domain.

HugeDomains had a lot going for it in this case. It didn’t point the domain to competing ads and apparently capitalized the domain on the landing page as TeMaris.com.

“Te” is a common pronoun in many languages.

To bolster its argument that it had no idea who the complainant was when it registered the domain, HugeDomains used Amazon mTurk to survey people regarding what “temaris” meant to them. No respondents mentioned the oil and gas firm. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is a fast and cheap way to get feedback from a sizable crowd.

This is a clever idea.

The panel didn’t put too much weight on the survey results but did consider it:

In reaching this conclusion the Panel has not attributed significant weight to the Amazon survey the Respondent relies upon (above) as it does not know enough regarding exactly how it was conducted. The Panel is still struck by the fact that it would seem that not a single person responding to the survey identified the Complainant or the TENARIS trademark in his or her answer, which seems consistent with the Panel’s view (above) as to the specialized sector the Complainant operates in.

One of the three World Intellectual Property Organization panelists found this to be a case of reverse domain name hijacking. The other two gave Tenaris a pass:

…Still in circumstances where the Complainant is seeking to be vigilant to prevent “typosquatting” in relation to its name, and where it has succeeded in previous UDRP cases (albeit with materially different facts) the majority are not persuaded the Complainant’s conduct falls within the above guidelines nor that it deserves the censure of a finding of RDNH.

The most baffling part of this case to me is that Tenaris pursued legal action when the domain was listed for sale for only $3,195. It had a flimsly case to begin with and likely spent well more than the asking price between filing and legal fees.

Also on the wire

Other reporting from the domain desk.

IPolicy & LawICANN reaffirms second round of fresh gTLDsCourt of Appeals affirms ruling in TRX.com cybersquatting case — Ninth CircuitPolicy & LawCourt of Appeals affirms ruling in TRX.com cybersquatting case — Ninth CircuitHold Pre-Conference Security Calls on Nairobi Meeting — ICANN ToPolicy & LawHold Pre-Conference Security Calls on Nairobi Meeting — ICANN ToCountryGirlStore.com guilty of reverse domain name hijacking — Owner ofPolicy & LawCountryGirlStore.com guilty of reverse domain name hijacking — Owner ofRPolicy & LawRegisters over 500 domains for AbbVie spinoff, hand registers brand domain — Abbott Labs1,017 Domains in Single Arbitration — FreeCreditReport.com WinsPolicy & Law1,017 Domains in Single Arbitration — FreeCreditReport.com WinsHurry Up: Demand Media to ICANNPolicy & LawHurry Up: Demand Media to ICANNVeriSign Notifies Registrars Regarding Domain Tasting ChangesPolicy & LawVeriSign Notifies Registrars Regarding Domain Tasting ChangesGPolicy & LawGets two reverse domain name hijacking losses in the same day — Stobbs IP