Yoyo Email’s business model: It’s complicated.
Yoyo Email, Ltd. is a British company that somehow managed to break all records for the total number of UDRPs filed against, in a given year.
Frankly, we have lost count, as the company has registered thousands of dot .Email domains, matching company names, trademarks and products.
In the case of Sanofi.email, some stern commentary was delivered by the WIPO panelist.
This time around, Yoyo Email, Ltd. received some lawyering about the Maplin.email case, yet another trademark of a British company, Maplin Electronics Limited.
The usual tirade about a business model was accompanied by a request for the dismissal of the case, on the basis of a pending US litigation Yoyo Email, Ltd. has commenced against Playinnovation Ltd.:
“The Respondent submits that it is developing a legitimate business based on the new .email gTLD platform. The Respondent contends that the disputed domain name will be used to certify and deliver received emails as part of a service performed on behalf of the trademark owner. No third party, consumer or otherwise, will be able to see the disputed domain name when it is used for this back-end email tracking service. The Respondent relies on pending US litigation which it has initiated, namely Yoyo.email LLC v. Playinnovation Limited, Court File No. 2: 14-cv-01922-JJT, arguing that this litigation will determine whether the business model of the Respondent is considered a legitimate and fair use of the <playinnovation.email> domain name and other related domains. The Respondent claims that this litigation will ultimately determine the same issues that arise in this URDP dispute. The Respondent is therefore seeking that this dispute be dismissed pending the outcome of the <playinnovation.email> litigation.”
Christopher J. Pibus, sole panelist, brushed aside any such claims by making a very clear observation: the Playinnovation case is not related to the Complainant in this case, Maplin Electronics Limited, and cannot be considered an obstacle in adjudicating this case:
“With respect to the US litigation, the Panel has examined the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment which the Respondent has produced as the principal part of its evidence. Without commenting on the substance of that Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, the Panel is able to make certain observations: (1) the US litigation is evidently at an early stage, as no responsive pleading has been provided; (2) the US litigation as framed does not name Maplin Electronics Limited as a party; (3) the only references to the domain name <maplin.email> occur in lists of numerous domain names owned by the Respondent; and (4) the requested declaratory relief seeks to include references to <maplin.email> even though the only named defendant in the case (Playinnovation, Ltd.) has no relationship with Maplin Electronics Limited and no connection with <maplin.email>.”
The panelist thus ordered the domain Maplin.email to be surrendered to the Complainant.
For the full text of the UDRP, click here.
