PCO.com owner doesn’t defend its property but panel makes the right decision.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a UDRP cybersquatting complaint brought by PCO AG of Kelheim, Germany against the domain name PCO.com. Panelist Adam Taylor made the correct decision even though the owner of PCO.com did not respond to the complaint.
PCO AG argued that the acronym PCO was unique to its business, standing for “Pioneer in Cameras and Opto-electronics”.
But Taylor noted that “…the term “PCO” is far from uniquely-identified with the Complainant. And the Complainant has overstated its case when it claims that there is no conceivable good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put.”
The domain name does not resolve. Had it resolved to a parked page with ads related to the complainant, this case could have turned out differently.
Source
A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a UDRP cybersquatting complaint brought by PCO AG of Kelheim, Germany against the domain name PCO.com. Panelist Adam Taylor made the correct decision even though the owner of PCO.com did not respond to the complaint.
PCO AG argued that the acronym PCO was unique to its business, standing for “Pioneer in Cameras and Opto-electronics”.
But Taylor noted that “…the term “PCO” is far from uniquely-identified with the Complainant. And the Complainant has overstated its case when it claims that there is no conceivable good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put.”
The domain name does not resolve. Had it resolved to a parked page with ads related to the complainant, this case could have turned out differently.
Source
