Der Betreiber des Domainnamens „Wall-Street.com“, der unter diesem Finanzinformationen publiziert, ging im Wege des UDRP-Verfahrens gegen den Inhaber des Domainnamens „WallStreet.com“ vor (Wall-Street.com, LLC v. Marcus Kocak / Internet Opportunity Entertainment (Sports) Limited, Sportingbet PLC, WIPO Case No. D2012-1193). Ein dreiköpfiges Schiedsgericht bei der WIPO lehnte den geltend gemachten Übertragungsanspruch ab, weil es dem Beschwerdeführer nicht gelang, nachzuweisen, dass es dem Beschwerdegegner an Rechten oder berechtigten Interessen an dem Domainnamen nach §§ 4(a)(ii) i.V.m. 4(c) der UDRP fehlt:
[…] the Respondent has submitted credible documentary evidence of other legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name after 2007 and prior to commencement of this proceeding. As stated in sections 4 and 5 above, after being prevented by law from continuing its gambling business in the United States the Respondents explored other means of maximizing the value of the Disputed Domain Name, among them a possible sale by auction or otherwise. Sale of domain names generally is considered legitimate unless taking advantage of another’s mark is involved, or, as stated in Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964, “In the absence of evidence suggesting name selection because of correspondence to a trademark, domain resale and the use of a domain to publish advertising links are both normally legitimate business enterprises.”
In this proceeding there is no allegation, let alone evidence, that a possible sale by the Respondents prior to commencement of this proceeding involved taking advantage of whatever goodwill attached to the Complainant’s marks or otherwise targeted the Complainant. Rather, as the Complainant certainly cannot deny,3 a domain name (a “.com” one at that) consisting of an international symbol of high finance and capitalism holds considerable inherent value. Offering such a domain name for sale by an entity that itself holds a registered trade mark for the term is in the circumstances legitimate.
Darüber hinaus erkannte das Schiedsgericht auf „Reverse Domain Name Hijacking“ (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking wird in den UDRP-Rules definiert als “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”).
