DomR - Domain Report

The domain name onthego.com was not transferred to Complainant, On The Go Technologies Group / On the Go Healthcare Inc.. [who on their website call themselves "OTG Technologies"]

Respondent -- ONTHEGO Internet Solutions Inc. -- has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.

Although the domain name onthego.com was registered many years before Complainant's trademark and even prior to the incorporation of Complainant’s parent company, the Panel -- strangely enough -- did not make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

The domain name whatswhat.com was not transferred to Aerogroup International, Inc. -- owner of trademarks for What's What for shoes.

"The Panel finds that the mark WHAT’S WHAT is also a common English phrase meaning “the true facts or actual situation” [...] and that Complainant cannot monopolize the use of the common English phrase simply by virtue of registering it as a trademark."

The domain name wwf.com was not transferred to WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International.

wwf.com was previously owned by the World Wrestling Federation, which since 2002 -- after a lawsuit from WWF -- is called World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). Part of the Court’s order was to either transfer or cancel the domain name. WWE cancelled the domain name and it became available for registration. Unfortunately for WWF they were not quick enough to register the domain name and somebody else beat them to it. Respondent acquired wwf.com in January 2003 for $10,000 and has used the domain name for a Web Wrestling Forum for a few years. Now the domain name is parked.

The Panel found that WWF failed to prove a bad faith registration:
"The fact that [wwf.com] was on the market and not transferred to [WWF] was an indication to the Respondent (and anyone else) that [wwf.com] had not been part of any order made in the litigation. One could not expect the media to carry, or the Respondent to know, the minute detail of the Court’s order.

Bad faith at registration against [WWE] cannot be inferred as bad faith against [WWF]. There is probably not bad faith against [WWE] if that body elected to release [wwf.com] on to the market.

The interval between the Domain Name registration in January 2003 and the appearance of wild-life etc. links on the website some time after April 2005 is just too long to justify an inference of bad faith registration at the time of registration."

The domain name ariel.ch was transferred to Procter and Gamble, producer of the Ariel laundry detergent and holder of the "Ariel" trademark.

The Respondent, whose first name is Ariel, did not submit a response. The Panel found that "the interest of a multinational group such as Procter & Gamble, which owns and has been extensively using in Switzerland the “ARIEL” trademark for decades, is higher than the interest of the Respondent who has registered his first name as a domain name, but who has not used the said domain name for a website in five years and who has not taken position in the present proceedings."

In 1999 a judge found that the domain name ariel.nl did not have to be transferred to P&G. [Article in Dutch about ariel.nl]

The domain name freeparking.com.au was not transferred to Complainant, WebFarm Ltd., of Plymouth, New Zealand.

WebFarm operates -- mainly in the Asia/Pacific region -- in the field of webhosting, domain name registration and associated internet services and products. Under the name Freeparking it sells domain names and webhosting services.

Freeparking.com.au consists of two generic words. The Panel said: "[T]here is no prohibition on registering generic words as domain names absent an intention to take advantage of another party’s rights in those words. Moreover, all other things being equal, the registration of a domain name that adopts generic words may in certain circumstances give rise to a legitimate right or interest by itself."

Also at the time of the registration of the domain name WebFarm "had scarcely started its business, [which at the time] was confined to New Zealand". Therefore Respondent has legitimate rights in the domain name.

WebFarm also had not registered a business name or a company name in Australia. Its Australian trademark was registered more than three years after the domain name.