UDRP has been denied.
The domain Wouxun.us was challenged via the UDRP process, by a Chinese company QuanZhou OUXUN Electronics Co., Ltd.
The company produces electronic equipment, selling two-way radios and accessories relating to wireless communication. They also registered the WOUXUN with the USPTO and in China.
In this case, Wouxun.us was operated with the Complainant’s permission, and the Respondent was a business associate who traveled to China to meet the Complainant.
According to the UDRP:
“Respondent contends that it has operated the resolving webpage at the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as evinced by its sales report and 5.5 million page views (average 2,000/day).
Respondent further contends business relations with Complainant deteriorated in 2014 because Complainant’s products were defective and the defects were not corrected. Respondent ceased offering Complainant’s products for sale and included disclaimers for customers that it no longer sells Complainant’s products on the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Respondent contends that its registration and use of <wouxun.us> is not in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii). Complainant’s products were sold on the resolving webpage and Complainant was aware of Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name and failed to object for seven years.”
Currently, Wouxun.us displays a statement that they are not associated with, nor sell radios made by Wouxun – after they run out of existing inventory.
A three member panel at the National Arbitration Forum found this dispute to be of the business conflict nature:
The Policy’s purpose is to provide a forum to resolve abusive domain name registrations, not to resolve more complex trademark disputes or contractual issues. […] There is evidence of a business relationship between Complainant and Respondent beginning in April 2010 that was ongoing through 2014. Complainant, however, does not speak to its relationship with Respondent or even acknowledge that there was one, nor does it note that Respondent notified Complainant of the registration of the disputed domain name shortly after it was registered. “When the parties differ markedly with respect to basic facts . . . it is difficult for a Panel operating under the Rules to determine which presentation of the facts is more credible. National courts are better equipped to take evidence and to evaluate its credibility.”
The transfer of the domain to the Complainant was thus denied, and they will most likely head over to a court of law to resolve this. View the full text of the UDRP.
