u-Bob

http://okok.com/lhcom-lost/

The_Truth_Will_Hurts

polish_aristocrat

I always thought being a WIPO-panelist would be a cool job.

Too bad I can't really apply for such a position anymore.

__________________
I don't use ICQ anymore.

DaddyHalbucks

A government or quasi-governmental agency with a bias to large entities?!










NO!!

__________________
Boner Money

Iron Fist

Money talks.... that is all.

__________________
i like waffles

woj

It sounds hard to believe.. what was lufthansa's argument there? anyone know more details?

__________________
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

JFK

yeah, anyone ?? What a fucking rip off

__________________

FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX
For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

Eman - PG

Did you read the complaint? Lufthansa owns the trademark to 'LH'. Just like International Business Machines owns the trademark to 'IBM'.

GAMEFINEST

hmm, that sucks for the owner..

__________________
Compound interest.

Slappin Fish

Just about any acronym is trademarked it doesn't give you rights to the domain name.

There is three panelist this is what one of them David E. Sorkin had to say :

"I simply do not believe it is likely that Respondent?s reasons for acquiring the disputed domain name were related in any way to Complainant or its mark, and therefore would not find that the domain name was registered in bad faith, as required by Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy."

kenny

"LH" is to short in my opinion to hold a enforceable trade mark on it.


I type in "LH" and "www.lufthansa.com" is the first domain that pops up. So, yes they use "LH" for business

Prehaps ICANN is just tired of having all these nice domains not being used and held for ransom. It doesn't look like they like the idea of respondent offering to rent the domain out.




Complainant also contends, in its Additional Submission, that Respondent?s business model essentially involves directing confused Internet users, who are in search of a legitimate business, to Respondent?s websites, which feature Respondent?s OXiDE search engine. The Panel may infer that Respondent is profiting from such use through the collection of click-through and pop-up fees for each redirected Internet user. The Panel finds that such use is likely to lead to confusion among Internet users as to Complainant?s sponsorship of or affiliation with the resulting websites and supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that ?[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant?s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant?s affiliation with the resulting search engine website? in holding that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Carey Int?l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2005) (?[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).?); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant?s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent?s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant?s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent?s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

__________________
7

Slappin Fish

They come top because LH is their airline IATA code. I am not sure the average surfer would know. With the number of airlines, all with two letter IATA codes, it is going to be a lot of lost domains.

kenny

I understand. While I'm not in agreement with the decision I can understand how it went down. ICANN favours infrastructure.

1) Complainant has a long history of the acronym "LH" being associated with their business.

2) Complainant did try to purchase the domain from Respondent. Respondent wouldn't sell only wanted to lease.

3) Respondent wasn't using the domain for anything besides collecting type-in traffic.

4) Surfers typing in "LH.com" were far more likely looking for Complainant than Respondent.


So if Respondent was the Lake Harbor Corp. they wouldn't lose the domain.

If LH.com was a legimite website and not a parked/redirection domain Respondent wouldn't have lost.

If Respondent wasn't using the domain they could of sold it and still made a profit. No need to hold a domain for 20 years with the hope of collecting/extorting a bunch of money that the domain would never generate on its own.

__________________
7

kenny

http://ua.com/

I'd be worried right now if I owned this!

__________________
7