Ceres
New Member
In a recent WIPO UDRP decision, the owner of ehotel.com lost the domain to ehotel AG. It's an interesting case. Here's my understanding of it:
The complainant, ehotel AG, owns a 1998 German trademark for EHOTEL SERVICE, plus a 2006 Community trademark for EHOTEL. The disputed domain was registered in 2003 by a Mr. Lutoborski.
Between June 2003 to January 2004, the ehotel.com website purported to promoted "eHotels" in Warsaw, Cracow and Zakopane that were "opening December 2003."
However, after discussions with the complainant, Mr. Lutoborski redirected the domain to the complainant's website ehotel.de (between March 2004 and February 2007).
In February 2007, the redirect stopped.
In March 2007, Mr. Lutoborski transferred the domain to the respondent, Network Technologies Polska Jasinski Lutoborski Sp.J (a company that Mr. Lutoborski is connected to). Even though the panel recognised that Mr. Lutoborski was actually controlling this company, it treated the transfer as a fresh registration.
Therefore, the panel looked at Mr. Lutoborski's intentions in relation to the disputed domain as at March 2007. As Mr. Lutoborski had failed to produce evidence that his original business purpose for the domain still existed at that date, the panel found the domain was registered and used in bad faith.
Even though Mr. Lutoborski may have initially registered the domain name for a legitimate business purpose, he effectively chose to abandon his own prior use and actively sought to associate ehotel.com with the complainant's business.
If Mr. Lutoborski had continued to do what he had legitimately set out to do, then it's unlikely that the domain would have been viewed as being used in bad faith.
What do you think of this decision?
The complainant, ehotel AG, owns a 1998 German trademark for EHOTEL SERVICE, plus a 2006 Community trademark for EHOTEL. The disputed domain was registered in 2003 by a Mr. Lutoborski.
Between June 2003 to January 2004, the ehotel.com website purported to promoted "eHotels" in Warsaw, Cracow and Zakopane that were "opening December 2003."
However, after discussions with the complainant, Mr. Lutoborski redirected the domain to the complainant's website ehotel.de (between March 2004 and February 2007).
In February 2007, the redirect stopped.
In March 2007, Mr. Lutoborski transferred the domain to the respondent, Network Technologies Polska Jasinski Lutoborski Sp.J (a company that Mr. Lutoborski is connected to). Even though the panel recognised that Mr. Lutoborski was actually controlling this company, it treated the transfer as a fresh registration.
Therefore, the panel looked at Mr. Lutoborski's intentions in relation to the disputed domain as at March 2007. As Mr. Lutoborski had failed to produce evidence that his original business purpose for the domain still existed at that date, the panel found the domain was registered and used in bad faith.
Even though Mr. Lutoborski may have initially registered the domain name for a legitimate business purpose, he effectively chose to abandon his own prior use and actively sought to associate ehotel.com with the complainant's business.
If Mr. Lutoborski had continued to do what he had legitimately set out to do, then it's unlikely that the domain would have been viewed as being used in bad faith.
What do you think of this decision?
Last edited by a moderator: