Flubs another UDRP Decision — NAF Panelist

Panelist doesn’t address domain name owner’s evidence.

Earlier this year I was dumbfounded by the actions of panelist Bruce Meyerson in a UDRP case at National Arbitration Forum. He literally asked the complainant to change its argument so he could find in its favor.

Meyerson just decided another UDRP case at NAF that calls his judgment into question.

The case involves fashion firm Guess?, which is familiar to anyone who grew up in the 80s.

Earlier this year, a UK resident registered the domain name Guess-IT.net with plans to use it for an e-cigarette firm. She registered a trademark for a logo using the name and established the business with the government. The domain name pointed to website builder Wix, but had not launched yet.

Guess? took offense to the registration, suggesting that “IT” stood for merely “information technology” and “there is no conceivable use of the subject domain name by Respondent that would be legitimate”.

The domain name owner, who was not represented by counsel, filed a two-paragraph explanation with NAF. She also attached copies of the trademark and corporation documents.

Given the expense and effort of the trademark and business formation, wouldn’t you say she has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and it wasn’t registered in bad faith?

Not as stated by Meyerson. In fact, he doesn’t even address the trademark and business filing in his decision!

This decision stinks.

Thanks to David Lahoti at UDRPsearch for bringing this case to my attention.