A registered trademark does not give automatic rights to a domain.
These days, an aggressive representation against UDRP cases is required, as the Complainants often engage in equally aggressive activity.
In the case of the domain Percipient.com, a dictionary word, the Complainant is Percipient LLC of Chicago, Illinois.
Percipient.com was registered in 2011; the Complainant owns a trademark for PERCIPIENT since its registration in January 2016.
Late comers in the game often assault the overall qualities of the domain owner, and in this case the Complainant alleged the following, calling the Respondent a “prolific cybersquatter” in the process:
1. Prior to the registration of the Complainant’s trademark, the Disputed Domain Name contained sponsored links which provided click-though revenue. At that time, the Disputed Domain Name notably did not contain sponsored links that were related to the Complainant’s services. Nevertheless, the activity of utilizing the Disputed Domain Name for sponsored links that do not correspond to the common or dictionary meaning of a term may demonstrate a lack of legitimate, good faith use.
2. Subsequent to the commencement of the Complainant’s business, the Disputed Domain Name began to add links with the words “e-discovery” and “legal” which were identical descriptions to the Complainant’s services and, perhaps most telling of the Respondent’s intent, the Disputed Domain Name began providing links to the Complainant’s competitors.
3. The Complainant has shown that the Respondent clearly desired to sell the Disputed Domain Name by advertising the sale of same for USD 150,000.
4. The Complainant has shown that the Respondent is a “prolific” cybersquatter, having registered numerous domain names containing trademarks owned by other third-parties.
Despite all this, the sole WIPO panelist found no reason to award the domain to the Complainant, thus ordering Percipient.com to remain with the current owner.
For the full text of the UDRP, click here.
