Hairdo.com dispute fails, domain remains with its owner

Domain Capital recently successfully defended their ownership of the domain name Hairdo.com through a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The case involved a complainant, HairUWear Inc., who claimed legal rights to the “HAIRDO” trademark and requested that the domain name be transferred to them. The Panel ultimately determined that Domain Capital continues to own the domain name.

Background Information

The Hairdo.com domain name was first registered in 1998 and has undergone several ownership transfers since then. The domain name is currently listed for $150,000. HairUWear Inc.'s complaint is based on their registration and use of the trademark “HAIRDO”, which they believe is confusingly similar to their trademark.

Complainant's Claims

HairUWear Inc. contends that Domain Capital's registration and use of the Domain Name is in bad faith, stating that it is not authorized to use the Domain Name and is not using the Domain Name in a legitimate manner. The Complainant also cites that the Respondent has intentionally marketed the Domain Name at a price higher than its direct cost, which may cause consumer confusion.

Respondent's Defense

Jason Schaeffer, counsel for Domain Capital, refutes the Complainant's claims, emphasizing the delay in the Complainant's actions and inferring that it does not believe it has exclusive rights to the term “hairdo”. The Respondent asserts that Hairdo.com is a generic term that the public does not directly associate with the Complainant. They are in the business of buying and selling domain names for commonly used words and the domain name was not registered to interfere with the Complainant's business activities.

Panel Decision

After consideration, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to meet all of the requirements of the UDRP Policy. Although the mark “HAIRDO” is similar in form to Hairdo.com, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not have actual knowledge of the Complainant and its mark at the time of registration and that the use of the domain name does not indicate bad faith. The Panel notes that although the Respondent has marketed the domain name differently, this is not sufficient to demonstrate bad faith intent at the time of registration.