Babista.com Domain Name Dispute Ruling Rejects Defendant's Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!

The Complainant, a German company, Venderstorm Ventures GmbH & Co. KG, has lost a UDRP decision on the Babista.com domain name.

In a dispute over the Babista.com domain name, the Complainant claimed rights to the trademark “BABISTA” and accused Respondent PTB Media Ltd of registering and using the domain name in bad faith. However, after reviewing the evidence, three Panelists ruled that the Complainant had failed to prove its allegations.

Background of the Case

The Complainants alleged that they are men's apparel companies that own a number of trademarks and domain names associated with the term “BABISTA”. They contend that the Respondent registered the domain name Babista.com and used it for pay-per-click links in bad faith and in an attempt to derive financial benefit from their trademarks.

The defendants argued

Respondent PTB Media Ltd, a Hong Kong-based domain name investor, asserts that they were unaware of the existence of the Complainant's trademark when they registered the Babista.com domain name. They claim that the domain name registration was based on their portfolio strategy and was registered in October 2005 along with a number of domain names ending in “-ista”, including the “.com” domain name, which has commercial potential.

The Ruling

The Panelists have reviewed the arguments and submissions of both parties and note the Complainant's deficiencies in its submission of evidence. Although the Babista.com domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark, the Panel did not find sufficient evidence to show that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's existence at the time of registration.

Accordingly, the Panel finds:

1. failed to prove identity or confusing similarity: the Babista.com domain name is identical to the BABISTA trademark owned by the Complainant, but does not satisfy the requirements of ownership and legitimate interest.

2. Failure to Prove Bad Faith Registration and Use: While domain name registration and use exists, there is no evidence that the Respondent acted in bad faith or in a manner detrimental to the Complainant's business under the trademark rights.

Accordingly, the Panel rules that the transfer of the Babista.com domain name to the Complainant is denied and that the Respondent's request for reverse domain name hijacking is also rejected.

This decision reflects the strict scrutiny of evidence and bad faith intent in domain name dispute resolution and emphasizes the importance of protecting fair competition and legitimate domain name investments.