What makes this interesting is that its not just some dodgy cybersquatter who is registering domains, its a car servicing company! They decided to register holdenplatinumservice.com.au, holdenservice.net.au and servicingholden.com.au. You can guess what happens next

Holden claims the domains are misleading and deceptive and WIPO finds that all the domains were:

1. Registered in bad faith.

2. Confusingly similar to GM Holden’s trademarks.

and the list goes on…. This is a lesson for Domainers and SEO companies who think they can “own an industry”. Here is one particular quote I like:

“the multiple registrations of domain names, not only including the Complainant’s trade mark but those of many other motor car manufacturers, strongly leads to a conclusion that the Respondent is seeking to divert the business of Internet users away from the authorised service centres of the Complainant and other manufacturers.”

Good decision WIPO.

Burger King has delayed the launch of its Russian expansion until 2010 after failing to register the domain name burgerking.ru.

A Scandinavian company registered the domain name and Burger King Corporation (who registered its trademark in Russia back in 1994) doesn’t want to pay for it.

It appears that this dispute is headed for the Russian courts.

Source: Kommersant (Written in Russian).

Another day, another WIPO (World Intellectual Property Org) case. Google vs Harit Shah for the domain name googblog.com. For some strange, unforseen, unknown reason, it was apparently too close to the Google trademark. Who would have thought?

Shah said, “I was in a bad faith that I can legally keep the domain googblog.com. I really did very unfair to Google. I sincerely apologize to Google for infringement by misusing their intellectual property.”

Via: SiliconIndia and TMC.

WIPO has sent a letter to ICANN to “seriously consider moving towards an essentially paperless UDRP”. Here are some interesting stats that appear in the letter:

• Over the lifespan of the UDRP, the total number of pages filed with WIPO alone is estimated at some ten million (roughly equivalent to over one thousand trees).

• The approximate number of paper pages from Respondents is over 300,000.

The letter outlines a number of reasons including:

1. Environmentally friendly
2. Efficient – leading to cost savings
3. Most already file electronically anyway
4. 4% email bounce back in 2008
5. The average time that elapsed between WIPO’s receipt of the electronic Compalint and its receipt of the hard copies was four days. “A delay in receipt of a Response in hard copy may also delay the Panel’s review of the complete record“.

I think this is a great move. Although I’m not surprised that its WIPO taking the initiative to suggest an improvement to an ICANN process. It just goes to show how inefficient ICANN is.

Although this week I did have similar, strange technology interactions with two companies:

1. Company A – a webhost asked me to print out, scan in and email them a copy of an invoice that I received via email. Apparently their process said that email (text) wasn’t good enough.
2. Company B – asked me to email them, post a hardcopy and fax them the same document.

Its 2009 and we are still using fax machines and printing stuff out – unbelievable. Shouldn’t we all have jet-packs by now?