who was represented by Randazza Legal Group The domain holder was represented by The Muscovitch Law Firm Here are the arguments made by the domain holder: “”The Respondent first claims to have registered the disputed domain name, , on or about November 29, 2002, and submits what are said to be the earliest available historical Who Is records, showing the Respondent, Murat Yikilmaz, as the recorded registrant, administrative, billing, and technical contact, for the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, in the same manner that the Complainant failed to prove any chain of title to purported common law trademark rights, the Complainant has failed to explain its purported chain of title to its domain name.
The Respondent observes that the various third-party documents cited by the Complainant relate to dates significantly later than that, and offer only limited support for the Complainant’s claims to have any common law trademarks rights, let alone any such rights from 2004, as alleged.
The Complainant’s reference to Google Trends may arguably show that “xnxx.com” has been searched to some degree on Google since 2004, but that it has only recently become a more common search term, suggesting that in fact the domain name was not widely known in 2004.
The Respondent asserts that this may be considered a “legitimate interest”. D2000-0016, “such a practice [trading in valuable generic and descriptive domains] may constitute use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (i.e.
Furthermore and in the alternative, the Respondent respectfully submits that speculating and investing in generic and descriptive domain names is a legitimate and well-established business, and that in and of itself, it may confer a “legitimate interest” in such a domain name, pursuant to the UDRP. the sale of the domain name itself).” The Respondent is the owner of numerous similar three and four-letter domain names, many of which are acronyms, descriptive words, or generic in nature.
Search for Xnxx 2014:
Pursuant to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), at paragraph 2.2, “factors a panel tends to look for when assessing whether there may be rights or legitimate interests would include the status and fame of the trademark, whether the Respondent has registered other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases, and whether the domain name is used in connection with a purpose relating to its generic or descriptive meaning”.