Ceres
New Member
What do you think of this decision relating to 1800Philosophy.com?
The complainant has owned a registered US trademark for "PHILOSOPHY" since 1996. The mark is used in association with goods such as cosmetics, fragrances, skin care products etc.
The respondent (who registered the domain in 2009) redirected 1800Philosphy.com to one of his other websites: 1800Therapist.com, a therapist search service.
As I think there's some overlap between philosophy and therapy, I was surprised that the respondent lost his domain (but note he didn't file a response to the complaint). Do you see the bad faith element? - I don't.
Also, as pointed out by UDRPtalk, the complainant doesn't seem to own the corresponding 1800 number.
The complainant has owned a registered US trademark for "PHILOSOPHY" since 1996. The mark is used in association with goods such as cosmetics, fragrances, skin care products etc.
The respondent (who registered the domain in 2009) redirected 1800Philosphy.com to one of his other websites: 1800Therapist.com, a therapist search service.
As I think there's some overlap between philosophy and therapy, I was surprised that the respondent lost his domain (but note he didn't file a response to the complaint). Do you see the bad faith element? - I don't.
Also, as pointed out by UDRPtalk, the complainant doesn't seem to own the corresponding 1800 number.
Last edited by a moderator:
