[new299]

I wonder to what extent companies consider the reputational damage these kinds of enforcement actions cause. I recently came across this when googling for information on a small Biotech startup:

https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=65fab3e46fc02956a010...

Will probably be the first thing I remember when I hear their name.

[fxtentacle]

Oh wow, they sued someone who used his last name as a domain name because they feel like their trademark should allow them to prohibit him from using his family name ... And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name.

[wlesieutre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...

[account42]

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft

[bugmenow]

Also in France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milka_contre_Kraft_Foods

[cowsandmilk]

> And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name.

Actually, the company’s trademarks are from 2017 and he got his name via marriage in 2020.

Still a stupid suit

[freehorse]

Yes, but they registered it in 2022, which makes the case even more hopeless.

[bitwize]

Prince Rogers Nelson's given name was a registered trademark of Warner Music. It took that whole stunt with him changing his name to Love Symbol #2 to get them to relent.

[fuzztester]

wow.

i didn't know that prince was the same as prince rogers nelson (only vaguely remembered the name prince as a musician from dances at high school), so googled his name:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)

[runeb]

Curiously, Scipio is also arguably one of the most famous family names from Roman Antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus

[diego_sandoval]

Mr. Scipio had to provide evidence, lose his privacy and justify his use of the domain name to avoid losing it.

That is enough proof to conclude that this UDRP thing is deeply unfair and should not exist.

"First come, first served" is much more fair than this "burden of proof falls on the defendant" nonsense.

We'll have to replace ICANN with something better at some point.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

UDRP is meant to address obvious, intentional, malicious domain squatting, where someone registers a domain with your trademark and then extorts you for it.

I believe it serves that purpose reasonably well.

There are three criteria that ALL have to be met (1. identical or confusingly similar to your trademark, 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith). In cases where these are met, it's pretty clear that the owner should be losing the domain.

I think it would make sense to add a rule that someone who issues a spurious UDRP request should be required to pay the domain holder some default amount of compensation for the hassle, but overall, I think this is a process that makes the Internet better, not worse.

[diego_sandoval]

What would have happened if Scipio refused to provide his marriage papers? Would he have lost the domain? How could he know beforehand?

If I was in his position, I would definitely feel the implicit threat of "if you're not willing to provide all the info we're requesting, you lose your domain".

> 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith

I've read arbitration cases where "The Expert" says (simplifying): "the site is being used for illegal activities, so there's no legitimate use", when no actual court or official institution has declared that the site's content is illegal*. So, you're at the whims of some "Expert's" opinion of what's legitimate, even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country.

I have very little trust on the competence and fairness of UDRP arbitration.

* And it's not a case where the things are evidently illegal, it's very debatable if they are.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

> even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country.

As I understand it, either side can escalate to the justice system in the end.

[fsckboy]

He's worried about his privacy? He reveals all on his website https://www.christian-scipio.de/

[diego_sandoval]

What matters is the general case. We shouldn't be required to expose our personal lives to be able to retain our domain names.

[arp242]

He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. If they had just paid that relatively small sum instead of getting all triggered that someone might ask money they would have had the domain. Hilarious. Good on this Christian fella for winning. What a bunch of idiots.

This does bring up a question though; I've had arp242.net for a long time, and obviously that's not my actual name. Can some company register "arp242" as a trademark and hijack my domain?

[devrand]

I think they generally give a lot of weight to someone who registered the domain well ahead of the said company registering their mark. Though you might run into trouble if you started using the domain in bad-faith against that company (ex. impersonating them).

In your example, you had that domain well in advance, it's your self-identified pseudonym that predates said mark, and it's actively being used to host your personal website. That seems like a pretty strong defense.

[Y_Y]

For the record, common law generally doesn't have a solid concept of actual/legal/"real" name, if you're known by a name then it's your name.

My birth cert, bank accounts, passports etc. are issued in various jurisdictions with various names. I'm not an international man of mystery or tax cheat, but I'm known by various equally legitimate names. It is a bit of a bother when someone around they must all be identical, but there's no crime or deception.

[arp242]

That is perhaps true in some Common Law jurisdictions (US?), but not for much of the world, including some Common Law jurisdiction such as the UK and Ireland. The first name I use daily is different from what's on my passport and I've gotten into trouble with this in both the UK and Ireland.

[Y_Y]

I'm not sure on what we disagree. It is my understanding that what I said applies to the UK and Ireland, there are formal ways to register a name change, but it is not necessary and it is possible to "change" your name simply by having people refer to you using the new name.

As I mentioned, this will cause some difficulty with people and organisations who assume names are unique and immutable(c.f. [0]), but that's not a legal issue and is no different to someone not coping with any other unusual but allowable circumstance.

[0] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...

[arp242]

> there are formal ways to register a name change, but it is not necessary and it is possible to "change" your name simply by having people refer to you using the new name.

Try opening a bank account like that. I can guarantee you it's not going to work; they will want to see a passport and proof of address with exactly the same name. I've been rejected by banks just because the utility bill shortened my second middle name to just "P".

This seems true for pretty anything of substance: government, tax, banks, insurance, health care, things like that. I'm not a lawyer and don't know how it works according to the letter of the law, but de-facto, you will have a "legal name".

[Y_Y]

I'm sorry you had trouble from your bank, I know the requirements are annoying. I have indeed opened bank accounts including in the UK and Ireland in names other than my passport name. It's easier once you have some piece of paper with a new name on it to get another.

[fsckboy]

>He was even willing to sell it for €5,000.

so he didn't much care about it as his email address as he generally used his other domain christian-scipio.de? https://www.christian-scipio.de/contact

[devrand]

It sounds like they intended to use it as the primary e-mail domain for himself and family. They claimed that they had already switched to using it.

However, the total window of time here is small. They registered the domain in late November 2023 and this UDRP was filed in late February 2024. It also sounds like initial contact to try to acquire the domain occurred in early December 2023... so only a couple days after it was registered.

[InvaderFizz]

They can try through the UDRP, but your easy defense is to point that the date registered exceeds their TM by years. The UDRP would be highly likely to end in your favor should you dispute.

[jrs235]

It brings more eyeballs and attention to them when they do this and makes uninformed or unopinionated people view them negatively.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[herman_toothrot]

RIP Uzi Nissan of Nissan Computer Company.

[erredois]

Remindes me of someone I met a long time ago that had the Zeppelin last name, and could not use on Facebook because and agreement between Facebook and the band Led Zeppelin blocked it.

[djbusby]

Yet, someone squatting my trademarked name (profile URL) on FB and I can't get it.

[richbell]

When I opened that link, I didn't except to be captivated by what is otherwise a boring procedural document.

Shame on SCIPIO.

[Terr_]

Kinda wish the company got more than a slap on the wrist for such nonsense.

> While the Complainant may have 'sailed very close to the wind' in this case [...] the Complainant's conduct in this case does not appear to fall squarely into the realm of any of the above mentioned [Reverse Domain Name Highjacking] circumstances. Therefore, the Panel has decided not to make a finding of RDNH on this occasion. The Panel however cautions the Complainant to only invoke the [Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy] Policy in the future in circumstances under which the Complainant is able to identify the bases and adduce evidence in respect of all three UDRP Policy grounds.

So yeah, name-n-shame on their leadership such as *checks* CEO Pierre Chaumat and friends. [0]

[0] https://scipio.bio/news/scipio-bioscience-appoints-new-ceo-t...

[sva_]

Perhaps survivorship bias, in that most go under without a fight and we never hear of them.

[gonzo41]

Well it worked out for Beyonce and when she trademarked her kids name https://www.bet.com/article/86lls7/beyonce-wins-blue-ivy-tra...

[jojobas]

Remember how KPMG claimed nobody is allowed to link to their site? I 'member.

[madaxe_again]

In my experience, businesses which are the most vigorous about pursuing frivolous IP claims and lawsuits are usually dishonest entities which themselves trample and steal the IP of others.

I have twice found myself defending my IP rights when a business in one case, a government ministry in another, attempted to dispute my right to use the work that they had themselves stolen, wholesale.

[hcfman]

Very interesting this. Disappointing that they did not add any extra punishment for being bastards to the complainant

[subpub47]

They don't. What are we going to do? Nothing.