The Green Bay Packers, Inc. of Green Bay, Wisconsin, filed a UDRP against the domain TotalPackers.com.
Registered since 2008, the domain and associated web site provides news and information related to the popular NFL team.
The domain TotalPackers.com commands more than 1 million visits per year.
According to the UDRP:
“Complainant’s team is one of the oldest teams in the NFL, having won 13 league championships, more than any other NFL team. The Packers are featured on national television throughout the pre-season, the regular season, and frequently in the post-season. Complainant engages in widespread marketing campaigns to continue to maintain and grow the name and brand for Green Bay Packers.”
The NFL has become a multi-billion dollar franchise, and many teams are becoming aggressively defensive of their trademarks; in the case of the Greenbay Packers, the use of their marks goes back to 1921.
“Complainant is the owner of the PACKERS trademark and several other PACKERS-formative marks, including: (i) PACKERS, registration no. 1100375, registered on August 22, 1978, with first use in commerce dating from January 1921; and (ii) GREEN BAY PACKERS, registration no. 1810704, registered on December 14, 1993, with first use in commerce dating from September 1963. The PACKERS mark is well-known and has developed strong reputation and goodwill among Packers’ fans and the general population in the United States, where both parties are located. Complainant operates its official website for the Packers using the domain name <packers.com>.”
In the end, the UDRP against the domain TotalPackers.com was denied, as the three WIPO panelists found the Complainant failed to establish all three clauses necessary to claim it.
For the full text of the UDRP, click here.
Edit: A previous version of the article erroneously stated that the UDRP was granted. We regret the error, and promise to consume more coffee and proof-read articles better.
Ha ha ha…You are stepping in the glory of the Chicago Cubs by mentioning the Green Bay Packers today. I am O.K. with it as I stand on the Green Bay side of the heated rivalry with Chicago..
Actually the findings were the opposite “complaint denied”
Accordingly, Complainant has failed to satisfy the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As noted above, to succeed on its claim Complainant must demonstrate that each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. Given the Panel’s findings that Complainant has failed to demonstrate Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name, the Panel considers that it is not strictly necessary to consider the issue of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finally notes that the parties remain free to pursue their claims, including as to possible trademark infringement or dilution / tarnishment in the courts.
8. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Christopher S. Gibson
Presiding Panelist
Matthew S. Harris
Panelist
W. Scott Blackmer
Panelist
Date: October 21, 2016
Domainer – You are correct, and the article has been edited. Apologies for the complete fsck up on this one.