The National Arbitration Forum just released its decision in the "New York Times" domain name case.In order to win the arbitration The New York Times had to prove the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark,the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest and that the respondent registered and used the DealBook.com domain name in bad faith.
The New York Times contended in the complaint that its DealBook website is one of its most successful content portals.Moreover,The New York Times owns a trademark registration for the DealBook mark.Therefore,they contended the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.Moreover ,they contended the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
However,the respondent Name Administration contends that “this dispute concerns a domain name which the Respondent has registered and used since March 2004…” in connection with advertising online gaming and with travel booking. Respondent further asserts that its registration and use of the disputed domain pre-dates “the bulk of” the Complainant’s “first use” claims in connection with financial publications and that Complainant’s mark is used by many others in connection with financial services. "
Moreovor,Name Administration said that is has used the disputed domain name in connection with advertising material relating to the terms "deal" and "book" .
However,this UDRP panel didn't ignore the doctrine of laches.
"Laches is an equitable doctrine that may provide a defense when an adverse party has unreasonably delayed in asserting his rights to the detriment of the accused. Where such a Complainant fails to police its claimed mark and does nothing for a substantial time while a Respondent develops an identical domain name for its own legitimate purposes, laches should bar that Complainant from turning a Respondent’s detrimental reliance to its own unjust benefit."
Therefore,the panel decided the relief requested to be denied.
You can read the case here .
- Follow us on :
