Bidz Inc. wants Bids.com but UDRP got denied

A UDRP should be responded to, or risk losing the domain.

Sometimes a UDRP cannot decide on disputed domains.

What’s wrong with companies these days, they want a piece of the action circa 1994.

That’s the year of registration of the premium generic domain, Bids.com, and yet a company named Bidz Inc. attempted to grab it via a UDRP at the National Arbitration Forum.

At least, that’s what it seems to be from the surface.

Going deeper, there seems to have been some history about who owns Bids.com:

“Complainant argues that this dispute is within the scope of the UDRP as a dispute between a former employee (Respondent Kuperman) who misappropriated the <bids.com> domain name for his own benefit.  Without even noting Daniella Zinberg’s arguments on this point, the Panel finds that Complainant’s own statements suggest the existence of a complicated business dispute underlying the ownership of both the BIDZ.COM mark and the <bids.com> domain name.  The Panel notes that Complainant did not even provide the Assignment document upon which it rests its rights in the BIDZ.COM mark until its Additional Submission.

That Assignment document is not straightforward, particularly regarding the <bids.com> domain name, allegedly part of the assets of BIDZ.COM, INC.  Complainant presents a convoluted history regarding who is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name, and a complicated history of the winding down of BIDZ.COM, INC.  Both the listed registrant of the disputed domain name and Daniella Zinberg have ties to BIDZ.COM, INC.; Leon Kuperman was the former President of BIDZ.Com, Inc. and Daniella Zinberg is allegedly the daughter of the founder of the company.  Complainant also entertains the argument that it has not abandoned the use of the BIDZ.COM mark.  Thus, many issues have been raised which would require proof more suited to the thorough scrutiny afforded in litigation.”

What a mess! Think about Dallas or Dynasty, only involving domains.

For that matter, Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist, decided to dismiss the complaint and deny the transfer, pointing everyone to settle their issues through the courts:

“[The Policy’s purpose is to] combat abusive domain name registrations and not to provide a prescriptive code for resolving more complex trade mark disputes .…  The issues between the parties are not limited to the law of trade marks.  There are other intellectual property issues.  There are serious contractual issues.  There are questions of governing law and proper forum if the matter were litigated.  Were all the issues fully ventilated before a Court of competent jurisdiction, there may be findings of implied contractual terms, minimum termination period, breach of contract, estoppels or other equitable defenses.  So far as the facts fit within trade mark law, there may be arguments of infringement, validity of the registrations, ownership of goodwill, local reputation, consent, acquiescence, and so on.”

For the full text of the UDRP against Bids.com, click here.

 

Copyright © 2024 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.