Yoyo Email Ltd., the British company alleging to have created a viable business model based on the registration of .Email domain names that match corporate names, brands and trademarks, broke UDRP records in 2014.
The pattern continues in 2015, and the game is becoming bigger with every UDRP.
As of late, instead of adjudicating single domain names, arbitration courts such as the Czech Arbitration Court are delivering decisions on groups of domains.
After deciding on the fate of 9 domains brought against Yoyo Email Ltd. by 8 Complainants last week, a fresh multi-UDRP decided on another 9 domain names from 7 Complainants.
The domains in this case were:
- MOLTONBROWN.EMAIL
- ROCHE.EMAIL
- GLAXOSMITHKLINE.EMAIL
- GSK.EMAIL
- BEECHAMS.EMAIL
- VERTU.EMAIL
- LYONDELLBASELL.EMAIL
- VELUX.EMAIL
- G4S.EMAIL
The panelist didn’t have a hard job, after all the previous cases that have been decided against Yoyo Email Ltd., it was clear that “the Respondent’s intended use of the Domain Names is neither “bona fide” nor “fair”.”
Furthermore, Lada Válková – the sole panelist – stated the following on the Respondent’s pattern of domain registrations:
“The Respondent chose to register domain names that the Respondent knew were <trademark.email> domain names, including the Domain Names, in order to prevent the owners of the trademarks from reflecting their marks in a corresponding domain name and, having regard to the very large number of such domain names involved, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. This is evidence of both bad faith registration and bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.”
This scathing statement isn’t exactly news; most WIPO panelists have the same or similar things to say about the UDRP cases they handled, with Yoyo Email Ltd. as the Respondent.
For the full text of this mass-UDRP decision, click here.
