SandraBullock
Member, Provider
Short lettered domain names are always in demand. These short names can be used as sleek and funky company names or they can be used as an acronym for a long company name. Such domains are thus wanted by many, sometimes there can be competing wants and this clash of wants results in domain name disputes.
Law and Business Enterprises Worldwide S.L. is a company based in Spain. The company provides legal, accountancy, securities assets management and tax services. It is a popular name in Spain, earning close to 15 million in 2021. It has registered trademarks over LABE, since September 2010. LABE is an acronym of the company’s name, and is used in various domain names such as labe.es, its primary website. Other domain names include labeabogados.com and labeabogados.net.
The complainant claims that the respondent is not using the domain for any substantial purpose. The domain name was registered to derive benefit from the established goodwill and popularity of the complainant and the domain labe.es.
The Respondent is a real estate investor with investments in domain names as well. The disputed domain was registered in June 1998. The Complainant is known by “Ann Labe” or “Rada Ann Labe”. This was established through numerous identification documents. The panel also found that the disputed domain had been in use at some point in time and displayed the complainant’s biography. The domain name is still used by the complainant for email.
The panel finds it clear that the domain was registered more than a decade ago before the complainant could register its trademark. The domain name through emails, is in use as well. How could the respondent register a domain name 10 years before the inception of a company, it tends to derive benefit from. Thus, the panel declined the complaint.
However, the panel found that a simple Google search would render the date of registration of the domain name. The complainant would have also been informed of the respondent and her book if they ever tried. The complainant filed for a UDRP, despite knowing all of these. The panel thus awarded the complainant with a RDNH as well.
You can read the case in full detail here.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
