Donald Trump wins generic domain TrumpCard.com in UDRP

IT.com

domainking131

Forum Leader
Staff member
Multi-billionaire mogul Donald Trump has challenged the registrant of TrumpCard.com in a UDRP, and has won.
The shocking decision relied on a trademark for TRUMP CARD that “The Donald” acquired in 2000, two full years after TrumpCard.com was registered, according to DomainTools.

“The Respondent generated revenue by linking Internet users to affiliate sites, such as “www.partypoker.com”. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to trade off the Complainant’s rights in his TRUMP mark. This is not use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.”

The term “trump card” is a generic term used in many poker variations and it originates from at least the early 1800’s.

The complete UDRP decision may be found here

Source: DomainGang
 
I don't agree with this decision, pretty disappointed and surprised THE DON was able to TM 'trump card' exactly for the reason you mention:

The term “trump card” is a generic term used in many poker variations and it originates from at least the early 1800’s.

Secondly by linking to aff sites, the previous owner was not abusing the name or claiming to have anything to do with THE DON....its just regular business linking to an affiliate program - thats one of the way domainers recoup registration and hosting costs - and hopefully profit after. To me, it seems like the attorney for THE DON somehow twisted the case making it seem like the Respondent was acting in bad faith, and the person making the decision fell for it.

It seems the respondent took the necessary steps to ensure Internet users were directed to THE DON's site if that is what they were looking for:

The Complainant’s lawyers first contacted the Respondent in 2011, threatening legal action. The Respondent replied, but received no further correspondence until January 2015. During this time, the Respondent took measures to ensure that Internet users looking for the Complainant could find the Complainant’s website. This was done through the use of a disclaimer and a redirection.

I also find the following statement faulty:

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent created webpages that were exact copies of the Complainant’s “Trump Hotel Collection” website. The Complainant annexed screenshots of these webpages to the Complaint. The Respondent denies this allegation, and provides a number of suggestions as to how the screenshots may have come about. The Panel does not have sufficient evidence to determine the legitimacy of the parties’ submissions on this point. However, in light of the findings above, the Panel does not need to address this issue.

The panel should be doing all the research necessary pertaining to the case and should not ignore critical elements, and feel that they should definitely address this issue because it would show whether the Respondent was acting in good faith by having that disclaimer and redirect in place, or if he was trying to profit off THE DON's brand by creating those replica pages he is being accused of.

MY 2 C:
These UDRP's are feeling like the days before DNA testing was available. I'm sure it will improve over time, and raise the awareness that domaining IS a business.
 

whois



Forums dedicated to Indian domain names, including buying, selling, appraising, developing, and monetizing.

About Us

Threads
29,388
Messages
76,792
Members
7,945
Latest member
nilamburfurniture
Top Bottom