A tm application alone does not give exclusive rights to a domain.
The domain name CollectiveGoods.com was registered in 2000, like many such two word composites.
Almost 16 years later, it was challenged via a UDRP filed at the National Arbitration Forum.
The Complainant in this case, Imagine Nation Books Ltd., asserted that the domain infringes on their COLLECTIVE GOODS mark.
Responding to these allegations, the Respondent stated:
“Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <collectivegoods.com> domain name. Respondent created the domain name in July 26, 2000 with the intention of creating a website that would create an online clearinghouse for donations of surplus goods to nonprofit. Respondent has created business cards, a business proposal and financial model, and letterhead all relating to the <collectivegoods.com> domain name. “
Not only that, a quick search for the trademark at the USPTO revealed that the mark application was just filed in October 2015, with an “intent to use” clause. In other words, there is no active trademark, yet.
Currently, there is nothing but PPC ads at CollectiveGoods.com. According to Archive.org, the domain has always been parked.
Despite that, the panelist stated that ” … Complainant has failed to establish its rights in the COLLECTIVE GOODS mark through not registering the mark and failing to produce evidence that it conducted business using the mark. “
It should have been a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, in our opinion.
For the full text of the UDRP, click here.
