Philippe Dauman loses UDRP, but that may not be the last of it.
Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has lost a UDRP for the domain name philippepierredauman.com
He lost the UDRP because he didn’t convince the panel that he had trademark rights in his own name. Panelist Richard G. Lyon followed the letter of the UDRP as well as precedent in coming to his decision. That was the right thing to do.
But I also don’t hesitate to render my own opinion that the person who registered the domain name is a cybersquatter. And given the remedies available in court, he might end up wishing he lost the UDRP.
The domain name was officially registered by “Dinner Business” in Valdosta, Georgia. After registering the domain, the owner or someone affiliated with the domain apparently reached out to Viacom to extract a ransom for the domain:
“In the voicemail message, Respondent says he is a ‘domain name broker’ from New York and Florida, and asks whether Viacom has ‘any interest or concern’ in the Disputed Domain Name. He further claims that he is ‘building an ad-based TV system … and will be using this domain as part of the system shortly. The domain will be connected to various social media like YouTube … and other equivalents in China and India. On June 20, 2013, he called and spoke to [a Viacom representative]. During this conversation, Respondent stated that he had acquired the ‘geo-coded domain name with the intention to distribute content in China and India, and generate ad-based revenue … like an Aereo-based system.’
Once the case was filed, the domain owner tried to justify his actions by stating:
I am working on a very small TV-like system to stream news content. I chose to use this domain as a small news site on the impact of video streaming. It has been used to link to publicly available, generic video clips.
The panel didn’t need to consider if the domain was registered in bad faith. It appears so. But since Dauman failed the first prong of the UDRP, he lost the case.
Photo: viacom.com.
M. Menius says
This is exactly the type of abusive/exploitative registration that casts a shadow on every legitimate domain investor.
acroplex says
Interesting facts: there is no “Dinner Business” incorporated in Georgia, so that part is bogus. The respondent owns Wonskolaser.com which is the family name of Warner Bros’ founders, before they emigrated from Poland. Looks like our friend registers names of corporate CEOs etc. The decision failed to deliver justice.
Andrew Allemann says
It failed to deliver the ultimately just outcome, but it UDRP may not have been the correct venue given the requirement of the first prong of UDRPs. The panelist even points that out, saying it might be better for the courts.
acroplex says
“It might be better for the courts” sounds like an excuse to deliver a decision that absolves the respondent. Clearly, the panelist lacked testicular fortitude. I’m all for RDNH findings but clearly, this is a case where a cybersquatter abused the system.
Andrew Allemann says
I don’t think so. The UDRP is different from remedies available in court, and the panelist clearly explains that:
UDRP is somewhat “weak” when it comes to protection of personal names. As is made clear in the article, I believe the respondent is in the wrong here. But it was within reason for Lyon to deny the claim on the grounds that it doesn’t meet the first prong of UDRP.
Mike says
I won’t say much for obvious reasons, but I am pleased to see this decision by this Panelist. At least he follows the letter of the UDRP rather than making up rules as they go along like other Panelists.