logo

REDTUBE Porn Site Enforcing Its Intellectual Property Rights

redtube

In an interesting twist, famed porn “tube” site REDTUBE, has decided to enforce some of its own intellectual property, despite the significant amount of copyright violations in the content it reproduces on its website.  In the recent cybersquatting case of Bright Imperial Ltd. v. Ho Nim WIPO Case No. D2010-0321, April 28, 2010, a single member Panel was face with a dispute over the domain, www.redtubehentai.com. REDTUBE is the well known website providing adult videos clips through its website www.redtube.com. REDTUBE boasts that it was the 63rd most trafficked website in the world and is the third most popular adult website. Complainant is the owner of multiple international trademark registrations for the REDTUBE mark.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires the Complainant to prove all of the following in order for its contentions to be supported in the proceedings: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element the Panel explained that Complainant’s mark was registered in various jurisdictions and that the disputed domain merely added the generic word “hentai” after the mark. The Panel found this to be confusingly similar to the REDTUBE mark.

Moving onto the second element, the Panel explained that REDTUBE presented a prima facie case and found that Respondent had not made a bona fide offering of goods or services. For these reasons, the Complainant had satisfied this element.

Lastly, regarding bad faith, the Panel found that Respondent had registered many other domains which were confusingly similar to third party trademarks, showing a pattern of such bad faith behavior. Additionally, since the domain contained third party links in direct competition to Complainant, such actions were proof of bad faith.

For all these reasons, the Panel found that Complainant had met its burden and ruled that the domain be TRANSFERRED.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site