UDRP decisions can be ridiculous.
The days of Marcio Mello Chaves are returning!
A Brazilian company, Calçados Bibi Ltda, that manufactures shoe and clothing materials, filed and won a UDRP for the valuable domain name Bibi.com.
The extraordinary case was decided at the WIPO and the case is in Chinese, so the translation services of Google are utilized in disseminating this decision.
Pretty much, the case involves alleged trademark confusion in China, where the Bibi.com owner resides. The Complainant operates from Bibi.com.br.
The domain was acquired in 2010 via SnapNames, apparently for low five figures. It once belonged to Future Media Architects but was ordered to let expire and it dropped.
The sole panelist, Sebastian MW Hughes, found that the domain infringes on the Bibi mark owned by the Brazilian company, and ordered Bibi.com to be transferred to the Complainant.
You will need Google Translate for this link.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.
Shocking decision really!
I was in the auction of Bibi.com at SnapNames in 2010 where it sold for low five figures. Was it sold at Sedo the same year again?
AbdulBasit – You are correct, it was acquired via SnapNames and not Sedo.
While FMA mistake was parking the domain with ads, I didn’t get why in this case the panelist decided in favor of the complainant.
As far as I can see from the translation from Chinese, it looks that Calçados Bibi applied for a TM in China only in 2013, while the domain was purchased in May 2010, and the respondent apparently used the domain for products/services which have nothing to do with the Nice classes for which the complainant TM is registered in Brazil and in other countries.
I didn’t check all the screenshots of the domain in question and all TM applications related to this case, but at first glance it does not look the respondent was using it “in bad faith”.
There could be bad faith in registration, but, as far as I see now, I don’t see a bad faith in use, even if I should analyze the case more in depth to be sure.
It seems the panelist made a big mistake here …
But also the respondent made a mistake not choosing a 3 members panel …
Andrea – You are correct in all of these. The one grave mistake made by the registrant: they did not use the services of an experienced attorney to respond.
Do You know of away for one to search all WIPO countries for a Trademark at once?
DomainGang, I fully agree with you. Had the Respondent had someone like John Berryhill on his side. This most likely would have gone the other way. But again the Complainant has nothing to lose other than $1,500 and gets a 50/50 shot on grabbing the domain name. Heck getting Bibi.com for $1,500 would be considered a great deal. Another score for the Complainants and their borderline reverse domain hijacking tactics. The system is broke and needs serious tweaking.