Outdoorsy.com, a domain registered in 1999, has been taken away from its registrant via the UDRP process.
The Complainant is Outdoorsy, Inc. that possess a registered US trademark for OUTDOORSY since 2016:
“Vehicle rental and leasing services; and reservation services for the rental and leasing of vehicles, namely, rental reservations for automobiles, trucks, cars, land vehicles”
Outdoorsy, Inc. currently operates from Outdoorsy.CO.
Surprisingly, the decision to surrender the domain was made by the owner themselves, all while they deny the allegations that the Complainant made through this UDRP filing.
Confused?
So were we, until we came across this part:
“Respondent registered the disputed domain name in October of 2016, subsequent to Complainant’s registration of its identical trademark with the USPTO on January 26, 2016. Panel has concluded, after a review of Complainant’s credible Attached Annexes, that Respondent registered the disputed domain <outdoorsy.com> with actual and constructive knowledge that the disputed domain was identical to Complainant’s OUTDOORSY mark.
Complainant has offered convincing evidence that Respondent, Laurel Michalek, has acted as an agent of RV Share, a competitor of Complainant, in registering the disputed domain name. Complainant’s Attached Annex N reveals that Ms. Michalek is, at least acquainted, with the wife of the competitor’s owner, that is Rachel Jenney. Also, Complainant’s Attached Annex O shows that RV Share, owned by Mark Jenney, (husband of Rachel Jenney, see Attached Annex Q) offers identical services of shared RV’s, to those of Complainant.”
In other words, the Respondent is not the original registrant of Outdoorsy.com and the Complainant alleges they acted with ulterior motives in mind.
Carol Stoner, sole panelist at the National Arbitration Forum, ordered the domain Outdoorsy.com to be transferred to the Complainant, per the details of this UDRP.
Well, now it all makes sense. A well-deserved UDRP finding then.
It would be interesting to see how the plaintiff even managed to get a TM on a generic term like outdoorsy. I think there’s more to this story that lives outside this UDRP and this will continue in litigation.
Yury – 1. There is no plaintiff, it’s not a lawsuit. 2. Apple is a generic term, so it’s all about use. 3. Matter is closed, the Respondent agreed to transfer the domain.
Cyber squatters bought the domain via a fast cash transaction, then ransomed the domain by approaching the plaintiff and demanding millions of dollars in cash in exchange for the domain. When the plaintiff refused, they started tagging the company’s name on porn videos to drive negative SEO but the UDRP stepped in, gave their ruling and now the respondent must transfer the domain. this kind of hostile activity only leads to damages claims and it’s hard to defend the blatant and malicious behavior to a Judge.
Now the respondent, due to sour grapes and their desire to get even with the UDRP ruling, is aggressively tagging the name of the plaintiff’s company with porn videos. this is likely to blow up in their faces. Not a smart thing to do.
John – Are you involved with this UDRP complaint somehow? Is/was there an actual lawsuit that predated the UDRP? Has the Respondent refused to comply with any type of private agreement? Any proof of the activity you mentioned?
Thanks.
I am not involved. I don’t think there is any lawsuit. But yes, I do have proof of the activity as I know the respondents.