Complainant approaches the Forum again for the same domain name

When commercial or private entities see their trademarks in use by some third party, UDRP complaints are filed. Based upon procedures, a decision is made on who gets to keep the domain name. This is a common scenario. However, seldom does a complainant reach the Forum twice for the same domain name!

Camco Manufacturing, LLC is an international company that manufactures and sells products related to ATVs, RVs, boats, camping, plumbing, etc. Established in 1968, the company had earlier approached the Forum over the domain name However, the complaint was denied. The party reached the doors of Forum again for the same domain.

The complainant presented  that the case was ‘refiling of an action’. The complainant claimed common law rights over the CAMCO mark. Post the previous verdict, it had registered several trademarks related to the mark as well. The complainant, thus wanted the domain name to be transferred.

The respondent is a domain name investor. The domain name was registered in September 2003. The respondent claimed that the domain name was a part of its investment to buy names that end in ‘co’. It presented different domains such as and, to establish its claim.

The panel noted that the trademark registration doesn’t restrict everyone from using the  mark. The rights are constrained to a limited class of goods. At the time of registration of domain name, there were many companies that used the mark in concern here. Hence, the complainant can’t be granted exclusive access. The respondent presents legitimate use of domain names such as that of The complainant thus failed to prove bad faith on the part of the respondent.

The complaint was denied.

You can read the complete case here.


  1. Larry Colt Avatar
    Larry Colt

    It’s worth noting that domain name disputes can be complex and it’s not uncommon for parties to disagree over who has the right to a particular domain name. In this case, it seems that the complainant, Camco Manufacturing, was not successful in convincing the panel that they had exclusive rights to the CAMCO mark and that the respondent was acting in bad faith by using the domain name. It’s not clear from this information alone what the final outcome of the case was, but it appears that the respondent was able to keep the domain name.

  2. David Blake Avatar
    David Blake

    “Co.” usually stands for “company” in a business name. But in some cases it also stands for “corporation.” The word “company” simply refers to a commercial business. It is not necessarily an indication of the business’s legal structure.
    In this this the domains can be used as a purpose for generic business name. So, the complainant can’t prove his sole right over the domain name.

Join the Discussion

Discover more from Domain Magazine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Verified by ExactMetrics