This National Arbitration Forum decision highlights how a complainant tried to obtain a domain name to which it didn't have rights. The complainant tried capitalising on two past decisions in which the respondent lost typo domains (wwwadameve.com and Symantic.com).
Even though the respondent did not file a response in this case, the panel ruled in his favour and stated that there was no finding of bad faith:
Respondent registered the <creativelab.com> domain name on September 15, 2000, which is four years before Complainant existed as a company.
In my opinion, this was the correct decision by the Panel. While I think the previous two decisions were correct (and the complainants deserved to win the typo domains), each case must be decided on its own merit in order for the domain arbitration system to work. I have come across other decisions where the outcome of the respondent's past domain disputes have hurt them. The problem with this is that many decisions are wrongly decided!
Leyton.com is another case in which a complainant relies on the fact that the respondent was ordered to transfer a domain in a previous dispute. The domain was YahooMailCom.com (an obvious TM domain).
However, the complainant in the Leyton.com case had a weak case. The domain is a geographical identifier (it is a place in the east end of London, England) and it is also a surname in the English language. No evidence was produced showing that Leyton had become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant's goods or services.
The Panel stated that a previous dispute, on its own, does not establish bad faith through a pattern of conduct. The complainant had not produced evidence supporting bad faith registration in the actual Leyton.com case. It was plausible that the respondent intended to build a website related to the Leyton area.
I think this approach makes sense and seems fair to both parties. It also gives a respondent the chance to learn from a previous mistake (well we hope!).
