One of the recent WIPO (World Property Organization) domain dispute decisions caught my eye. Everyone knows the magazine called “The Economist” published by The Economist Newspaper Limited. They recently filed suit with the WIPO on November 9th, 2007 to gain access to the domain name TheEconomist.com.
At the time when the complaint was filed, TheEconomist.com had been used as a tribute site to former U.S. chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. Rose, the original registrant, denies that he had knowledge of The Economist Magazine back in 1996 when he registered the name.
The Economist Newspaper Limited argued that the disputed domain name is identical to the magazine’s registered trademarks, and that the individual who registered the name has “no legitimate interests” in the domain name.
The Complainant, The Economist Newspaper Limited, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was represented by Rouse Legal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Respondent was TE Internet Services, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States of America, represented by ESQwire.com Law Firm, United States of America. The domain was registered in November 1996 by Jason Rose, the owner of Maryland-based TE Internet Services.
The complainant first learned of the existence of theeconomist.com in 2001 and contacted Rose to obtain the rights to the domain. Rose didn’t reply to the initial request and then refused an offer of $500 that was presented to him last August through an intermediary.
Under WIPO rules, rights to a domain name can only be transferred if:
the complaining party can prove: that the name is identical or “confusingly similar” to a trademark or service for which it has rights
the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the name
that the name was registered and used in bad faith.
Unfortunately for The Economist Newspaper Limited, the WIPO concluded that, although it was “skeptical,” and “has some doubts,” The Economist Magazine failed to prove that Rose and TE Internet Services used the domain name in bad faith. Furthermore, “The only way that Mr. Rose’s assertions can be tested is in litigation where a judge would have proper opportunity of assessing the quality of this evidence. A proceeding under the policy is not the proper forum for determining such a belated issue of fact,”.
This matter is far from being settled and is an “ongoing legal matter” according to The Economist Magazine spokesperson. In the end it is normally the party with the deepest pockets who seems to win the right to the domain name. We shall see who that will be in this particular case…
Source: Chief Editor writing for DomainNews.com – February 28th, 2008
ShareThis
