Monetising Blackberry
Monetising Blackberry - Griffith Hack
| 22 March 2011 | |||||
| In 2010, the domain name blackberrybridge.com would have resolved to a website containing links to competing products. Such websites are common and exist because the operators of these websites are often able to derive financial benefit from the links through what is referred to as “pay per click advertising”. These websites are often referred to as pay-per-click websites or PPC websites. Where PPC websites are linked to domain names containing trade marks, there is a risk that consumers intending to visit the brand owner’s website will be misdirected and perhaps remain so. It is possible that the misdirected consumer will find an alternative offer that is sufficiently attractive to satisfy their requirements and there will therefore be no need to seek out the brand owner’s website. The owner of the BLACKBERRY trade mark, Research In Motion Limited (RIM) has ensured that the domain name blackberrybridge.com is no longer linked to a PPC website. RIM recently filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It succeeded. RIM was able to satisfy the Panel that the domain name was confusingly similar to its BLACKBERRY trade mark, that the domain name registrant had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name was registered and was being used in bad faith. The same fact scenario in Australia would have enabled RIM to pursue an alternative and more cost effective avenue. An Australian domain name that points to a PPC website is permitted only if the PPC website specifically relates to the domain name. However, if the domain name linked to a PPC website incorporates a trade mark, the trade mark owner may apply to the Australian Domain Name Administrator to have the domain name cancelled by operation of its Domain Monetisation Policy. The disadvantage of pursuing this avenue instead of the .au Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (similar to the UDRP) is that the domain name is not transferred to the complainant. However, this may not concern complainants that have no use for the challenged domain name. Such complainants may prefer the alternative avenue knowing that a further attempt to register the same domain name for the purpose of linking it to a PPC website may result in a further cancellation. | |||||
| For further information, please contact: | |||||
| |||||
