Answer to WIPO concerning domain www.mlpwatchblog.com - Case Number: D2008-0987
Dear Sirs,
we have received a Complaint of MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG concernig our domain name “www.mlpwatchblog.com“.
We do not agree to the Complainant’s oppinion. Furthermore the complaint includes false factual allegations. For details see our answer below.
Anyway the Complainant is too late because the firm was aware of our weblog from the beginning on (for more than a year) and never complained.
Answer to the Complaint of MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG
The Complainant claims that the domain name is identical or confusingly similiar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Obviously this is not true. The domain name is clearly shown as a watchblog, not a corporate blog. Nobody who types „mlpwatchblog.com” will expect a corporate blog.
The Complainant claims that the view of German customers is of particular importance.
It is not. The watchblog adresses to the people of the United States of America to inform our friends about an astonishing firm in Germany.
The Complainant claims that the disputed website is solely geared to the German market.
This is complete nonsense.
Our information is not for the Germans. It is for the Americans. A huge part of MLP’s shareholders is from the USA, e.g. “Harris Associates Inc., Chicago, U.S.A”.
It is not geared on any market. The website is a political watchblog. We do not entertain any financial activities in the Complainant’s business or in any other business. The website is an answer to the Complainant’s activities to block free speech and consumer protection in Germany. We are demonstrating that criticism of industrie should be possible - not in Germany, but in the USA.
The Complainant claims that in Germany, the word watchblog has not reached a comparably awarenesslevel yet.
The Complainant claims that the term watchblog has its origin in the U.S. Watchblog differ from other blogs (…)
It is an U.S. Watchblog for Americans, written in english.
It is not a German blog for Germans. We don’t have to care what the huns are able or not.
Those who are able to read english – the blog’s language - should be able to figure out what a watchblog is. Nobody who enters our website will confuse it with a corporate blog. If somebody doesn’t know what a watchblog is he hardly will type in “mlpwatchblog.com“.
By the way, the most famous blog in Germany is a watchblog: www.BILDblog.de monitors the German tabloid “BILD”. Like most of the German watchblogs BILDblog doesn’t even see any need to call a blog “watchblog” in the domain name. Another famous blog called http://www.spiegelfechter.com/
Despite this, here are some popular German blogs including the term “watchblog”:
http://www.googlewatchblog.de/
http://www.webmasterwatchblog.
http://www.chinawatchblog.de/
http://www.myhammerwatchblog.
http://insmwatchblog.
http://www.watchblog.de/
http://iwatchblog.com/
http://www.seo-watchblog.de/
http://basicwatchblog.
http://www.basicthinking.de/
http://www.kwitschibo.com/
Internet is a dynamic process. Most influences came from the english speaking world. It doesn’t matter if an American trend isn’t known in a foreign country at this moment because the next moment it is. Internet is a global phenomenon. The huns should know and respect this.
By the way, the “Red Bull”-decision mentioned in the Complaint has nothing to do with this constellation. Sorry, but point “A” is a completely waste of time.
“B.”
The Complainant claims that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
We do have legitimate interests to include the letters “MLP” in our domain name because we are the MLPwatchers. Americans have the right of free speech. This includes the right to name the topic we want to report on. This could be done in headlines, on covers or in domain names.
This is practiced by famous American blogs for years.
http://walmartwatch.com/blog
http://www.microsoft-watch.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.
http://www.bushwatch.com/
http://www.weight-watch-blog.
http://www.generalwatch.com/
http://www.demconwatchblog.
http://investorswatchdog.com/
“C.”
The Complainant claims that the domain name is being used in a bad faith.
We are critical and we are on a mission. So the complainant has to see us acting in a bad faith by nature. So what?
The Complainant claims that the website’s intention was to dispread reputation damaging lies.
Sorry. We never spread one single lie.
To “prove” this allegation the Complainant presented one of our almost 200 articles on page 8 and labeled it simply as a lie.
We regret to inform you that our report matches the reality in detail:
1. The times when the Complainant was in his origin business (distribution of insurances and other scams) are history. Today – seven years after the famous “MLP Skandal” - the Complainant has big problems to find new salesmen and new customers. This is a result of different reasons. Anyway, it is an open secret that the Complainant does not generate recognizable money in his origin business. According to the Complainant’s own report it is easy to calculate that every salesmen of the complainant finds only two new customers per month in average. In the complainant’s business such a lousy result means literally “nothing”. Especially the distribution of health insurances is going to zero. May the Complainant proof us wrong.
2. Unlike his given story the Complainant received a pay back resulting from an expertise which is declared in the Complainant’s own report as “Betriebsprüfung” (external audit). The Complainant knows that we have supporting information on this highly sensible matter. If the Complainant wants us to discuss this in public, we are ready to do so and to prove every single word. At the moment we prefer to keep silent on this. And we have no doubt that the Complainant does either.
3. The Complainant used this expertise in a bold and clever way and turned it around against the authorities. We hardly believe that the Complainant really wants to discuss this in public. If the Complainant does, we are ready.
If the Complainant denies this allegations he is asked to show the so called “expertise”. We bet the Complainant never will do so.
“VII.”
The Respondent does NOT agree that the dispute should be decided by one single-member Administrative Panel.
We know that the Complainant used to bribe authorities in past. We have no doubt that the Complainant will continue or make use of his contacts. So we want to debate this decision as open as possible. The Complainant should bribe as much as possible deciders.
Sincerely yours
MLPwatchbloggers
Am 31. Juli 2008 um 10:41 Uhr
[…] The Wieshole’s new lawyer, Mrs Malini Nanda, should take notice of the following addition to our first statement: […]
Am 7. August 2008 um 01:05 Uhr
[…] http://www.mlpwatchblog.com/2008/07/22/answer-to-wipo-concerning-domain-wwwmlpwatchblogcom-case-numb… http://www.mlpwatchblog.com/2008/07/27/wait-a-moment-mrs-nanda/ […]