WIPO steals for their loved ones

So I just got an e-mail from WIPO.

The Administrative Panel’s finding is as follows:

“For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.”

The decision is dated 19th of November, although I received it today. It might be the fact that I have 10 business days to contest the decision that makes them wanna send it that late. Kinda off?

The decision is of course total bullshit.

These are the reasons:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided and the Panel accepts, evidence of its many trademark rights for IFPI and its reputation in several countries including the UK. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the IFPI trademark. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

- IFPI is an abbreviation, not trademarkable in most countries. There are also many organisations called IFPI already, IFPI.org just happens to be one of them (that also is a very good friend of the people at WIPO)…

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant must firstly establish a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As noted above, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence of its numerous trademark rights in the IFPI trademark. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name was registered after the Complainant failed to renew it. The Disputed Domain Name is currently not in use and has a pirate skull design presented on it. At the time that this dispute commenced was used to provide a blog called “IFPI.com, free music downloads” with sponsored links to free music downloading sites. The Panel accepts that this was not a legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name. [..] The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Respondent is not commonly known as IFPI, nor has he been authorized by the Complainant to use the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent is involved with the Piratebay website company and neither he nor this organization have any trade names or trademark rights for IFPI. The Respondent asserts that he has been making preparations on another server to launch a website at the Disputed Domain Name and as such has legitimate interests in . The Respondent also says that he intends to use the acronym IFPI and the Disputed Domain Name for the establishment of an organization called the “International Federation of Pirates Interests”. However, the Respondent has provided the Panel with no evidence of any actual demonstrable preparations to establish this website or Federation.

- They didn’t renew the domain is established. Yet they can keep it? I’m never going to renew a domain again since it’s not needed, I’ll get it back when I feel like it.
- What is “in use”? I buy a lot of domain names. I buy them for future use, I get a good name and I build a website. It takes a long time sometimes. Is playble.com not “in use” neither? I can assure the guys at WIPO that the internet is full of websites still not launched because of time issues. I’ve owned the domain name ifpi.com for a few weeks and it has been under locking since. Is that not a reason itself enough to not publish anything more on the site than what’s currently on there? And is there any relevance to note that we have a pirate skull design? Yes we do. We think it’s cool.
- We’re not commonly known as IFPI according to whom? Ask any of the pirates, they’ll say it’s us. Look it up in the abbreviation dictonaries online, we’re known as IFPI there as well.
- I’m involved with The Pirate Bay. Political censorship anyone?

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s organization and rights in the IFPI trademark when he registered the Disputed Domain Name.

- Yes, they have no trademark since IFPI is an abbreviation. Aka they have no rights to the domain name ifpi.com in our book.

This is so in view of the Complainant’s substantial reputation and the fact that the Respondent, by his own admission, was aware of the Complainant’s activities for some time prior to this dispute.

- Yes we are aware of International Federation of Phonographic Industrys activities. And that they have an abbreviation, yet again, which is not a trademark. And my reputation? What does this have to do with anything?

The Respondent has not provided the Panel with a legitimate reason for registering the Disputed Domain Name in these circumstances, other than that he sought to promote an organization said by Respondent to be called the “International Federation of Pirate’s Interests.”

- And is that not good enough? I can prove this even before the domain got transferred to me. Am I not allowed to have the organisation IFPI?

Furthermore, the change to the registrant details after the initiation of this dispute is dubious. The Panel is not entirely convinced by the Respondent’s argument that he received the Disputed Domain Name from an anonymous donor. However, there is insufficient evidence on the face of it to determine whether this is a clear case of cyber flight or not.

- I did. I wish I could thank the person, it must be a guy on IRC though. Thank you, mr donor. But if I was faster I would have bought the domain directly myself. What case of cyber flight would that be? It’s a 4 letter .com-domain, they’re hard to come by, anyone interested in domains must think it’s a great one!

Re‑directing web traffic from the Complainant’s website to the Disputed Domain Name would be likely in the Panel’s view to cause direct confusion with the Complainant’s rights and activities. Even if the Respondent intends a future bona fide non‑commercial use for the Disputed Domain Name he has not provided sufficient evidence of proposed use. The Respondent has only indicated that the intended site is for the purposes of a pro‑piracy lobby.

- It’s not re-directing web traffic from the Complainants website. It’s our own website, is that so hard to understand? There is even a link for those who would actually get confused. It’s like moving into an apartment - if mail gets received for the old tenant I would just say “he doesn’t live here anymore”. Is that different with domains? No.
- And what’s bad with a pro-piracy lobby? Yet again this confusion over the censorship, are we not allowed to speak critically against copyright?

And to end with the most interesting thing of the decision, this:

The Respondent has challenged the Panel’s jurisdiction based on the fact that the Complainant’s organization acted in an observer status at the WIPO. However, both the WIPO and this Panel operate independently of any party to this dispute. The common interest of promoting the protection of intellectual property does not create a conflict of interest in this case and as such no conflict arises.

- Just think about that for a moment. “The common interest of promoting the protection of intellectual property does not create a conflict of interest”. I don’t even think I need to comment on that, it’s total bullshit, since the IFPI.com domain would be all about abolishing todays intellectual property.

I just lost all my respect for WIPO.