Provides rare glimpse into UDRP complaint — Overus.com case
Losing complainant posts all documents online, counting price negotiations.
When Reglike notes on UDRP decisions, usually all we have is the panelist’s write-up of the decision. This typically includes the panelist’s summary of each party’s case, but not the entire written complaint and response.
In the case of Overus.com, which the respondent just won, the complainant actually posted the full complaint online — counting evidence he submitted that was rather damning to his case.
The complaint was filed by Keith J. Miklas, d.b.a. The OVerus Organization, which owns Overus.org.
OVerus promotes a label that food firms can put on their products “that respect Christian values”.
Along with the full complaint (pdf), Miklas posted the sales inquiry communications for the two times he tried to buy the domain.
The communications show that, rather than someone who thinks a domain owner is cybersquatting on his trademark, Miklas is just trying to buy a domain to help his organization ramp up.
He labeled the attachments “price negotiation”.
In response to the domain owner asking Miklas how much he’s willing to pay for the domain. on August 28, 2012 Miklas writes:
Hi Stu,
Well, I’m trying to get a non-profit off the ground, which is never easy.
Would you take $50?
The domain owner responds with an asking price of $5,000, to which Miklas responds:
Wow… yeah… at this point I’m not even close to that number. I haven’t even made $5,000 gross with the current business model.
If the business takes off and justifies the cost of this domain I will email you back.
Does this sound like someone who thinks the owner of Overus.com is violating his trademark?
It also draws into question the level of trademark rights he has in the “Overus” name despite the federal registration. Further, I don’t see any notice on the web site that it’s a non-profit, as he asserted. His follow up communication seems to be regarding a business, not a non-profit.
In the “second price negotiation” (pdf) from March to May 2013, Miklas offers $100 and then $150.
The $150 offer is followed by “If this goes well I will look at the other domains in your portfolio”.
He follows up with another offer for $1,000 in May, asking for a response by May 20.
On May 20, he sends a cease and desist letter.
Nowhere in the two negotiations does he assert that the respondent is infringing his mark.
The single member National Arbitration Forum paneled ruled that the complainant failed to even make a prima facie case in support of its arguments that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain.
