Can The Laundering Of Domain Names Under The Ambit Of Ownership Ever Overrides The Rights Conferred To Act Against Cybersquatting?

 

The dilemma of the Domain Name Registrars is, they are contending for the Domain Name Ownership Rights, by bypassing the Rights conferred both by the WIPO and TRIPS regarding TMs to act against Cybersquatting/Typosquatting.

Let’s say in the 00s, I started hoarding the domain names, anticipating that a day, I would be able to sell it under the analogy of Future Options. These are not Specific Conceived Original domain names, but, are mere Dictionary words. Imagine, I bought in the 90s or 00, almost close to nothing these domain names. And then, eventually, when I saw, that the domain name empire thrived, I quoted the capriciously price to transfer, or, to sell them. But here is the conundrum-> That so far, I haven’t used these domain names, nor created any brand’s goodwill associated to any of these domain names. They just parked, lying unused, and I’ve collected these as Stamps.

Now, the Domain Name Registrars betted for the Ownership Rights of these UNUSED domain names. But amidst all, they all forgot one specific thing. That the Non-Use factor of the domain names, cannot override the basic principle of taking action against any act of cybersquatting, even if the ownership rights of the domain name existed prior to it.  As, such arbitrary rights conflicts with the provisions of USE & NON-USE factors’ of the domain names.

For example: in US, one has put a statement of working of the Trademarks every 5-6 years. In India, albeit one is not required to put a statement ever now & then, YET, any trademark that is registered can be Rectified on the basis of NON-USE. This is how the rights of the Trademarks were conferred by the TRIPS, at the National IP Acts and Rules, and furthermore, specifically, at WIPO.

Registrants are technically overriding this Non-Use factors which is in contravention to TRIPS by betting only on the Ownership Rights alone.

What if, lets’ say, Subject A has created a goodwill in the Market, with a ‘one word’ trademark. Can this individual take action against such individuals who hoarded the domain names comprising only such common ‘one words’, but, lying UN-USED, PARKED, and now being sold at the arbitral price? According to me, Yes indeed! And a precedence should be set by WIPO in the arbitral proceedings, despite I know their powers are only conferred till either Cancellation OR Transfer of the domain names. And if WIPO, whether via UDRP or by other means, pass an award as a case precedent of cancelling or transferring such domain names, then, it would truly set a correct precedence.

There are few principles to keep any trademark alive, and one such principle is its USE. WIPO must today decide. What should prevail and what should override!. 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi