web analytics

Shocking decision: Nineteen year old domain Ovation.com lost in UDRP

No standing ovation about this UDRP decision!

No standing ovation about this UDRP decision!

The aged, generic domain name Ovation.com has been ordered to be transferred to the Complainant, after its registrant lost a UDRP at the National Arbitration Forum.

According to Domaintools, Ovation.com was registered in 1994; the Complainant, DC Labs Inc. is engaged in producing, selling, and distributing hair care products since 2007 and operates their business from OvationHair.com.

The respondent acquired Ovation.com in 2008, and at the time the decision was issued, Ovation.com was apparently displaying ads related to hair products bearing the Complainant’s mark, or links for other hair care companies.

Despite the Respondent’s contention that there are 140 other registered trademarks for “Ovation” at the USPTO, the sole panelist, Eduardo Machado, delivered the following shocking statement, as reason for deciding on behalf of the Complainant:

Although not a conclusive argument, the fact that Respondent owns 107 domain names, according to a reverse WHOIS lookup, might be considered a pattern of Respondent’s history of purchasing domain names and not using them for legitimate business purposes. […] Respondent has not monitored the disputed domain name since 2009 and has allowed it to be “parked”.

Definitely a decision that will send shock waves across the domain industry!

Read the full text here.

This post is 100% true!

This post is 100% true!

Copyright © 2020 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.


7 Responses to “Shocking decision: Nineteen year old domain Ovation.com lost in UDRP”
  1. Business Show .Tv says:

    I hope he sues the panelist for being a fraud, surely he cannot be qualified to be making these important decisions if he does not understand that parking domains is a legal standard

  2. Excitemental says:

    More and more of these keep on happening, it anyone going to try to buy a domain name anymore or just try to win it!

    Lets hope this more claims are rejected!

  3. Scott Neuman says:

    About as bad a decision as it can get. It looks like the owner wasn’t represented by an attorney but also saying the parking agent is at fault and they should have handled it wasn’t the best way to go. I also dislike again, that just because I buy and sell domain names and develop them isn’t a true business model.

  4. DomainGang says:

    Scott – The Respondent was represented by an attorney, see the full decision.

    In my opinion, there is no excuse not to develop a high ticket domain, and instead allow it to display ads that can be used in a case like this.

    I agree, however, that the panelist’s bias against domain parking is paramount.

  5. Nuno says:

    Right now I only park about 1% of my domains, and not for long.
    I may lose good 5-figures a year until I monetize all of them, but at least I won’t be risking them.

  6. DomainGang says:

    Nuno – Smart move.

    In the long run, however, no defense can be too strong, and a good IP attorney with extensive knowledge in UDRP proceedings can win the game against all odds.

  7. bob says:

    So am I entitled to every piece of undeveloped land I see because the buyer could have built a home there?
    The panelist needs his head checked for rocks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available