DietsDontWork.com – Autor des Buchs „Diets Don’t Work“ scheitert im UDRP-Verfahren

Der Autor des nach eigenen Aussagen bekannten Buchs „Diets Don’t Work“ scheiterte bei dem Versuch, den Domainnamen „DietsDontWork.com“ im UDRP-Verfahren übertragen zu bekommen (Walter P. Maksym, Jr. v. Dzone Inc., Yeonju Hong, WIPO Case No. D2012-0869).

Da der Beschwerdeführer keine Markenrechte an der Bezeichnung „Diets Don’t Work“ hat, hätte er, um im UDRP-Verfahren erfolgreich sein zu können, nachweisen müssen, dass die Bezeichnung auf Grund erfolgter Benutzung Verkehrsgeltung erlangt hat (vgl. hierzu auch den Beitrag UDRP und Titelschutz? WeWillRockYou.com). Dieser Nachweis gelang dem Beschwerdeführer allerdings nicht, da die diesbezüglichen Behauptungen nach Ansicht des Schiedsgerichts nicht hinreichend belegt wurden:

The fact that the Complainant is the owner of the copyright in a book titled “Diets Don’t Work” does not on its own satisfy the first element. The Consensus View makes it clear that the Complainant typically has to show that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant or his goods and services. The Complainant has made a number of assertions in relation to the fame of the Book and the long and extensive use of the name. However the Panel finds the Complainant has failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence to substantiate these claims.

Aside from the claim on the cover of the book that over 600,000 copies have been sold, the Complainant has not provided any sales or advertising figures in relation to the book and all the other related activities done under the name “Diets Don’t Work”. It is also not clear when the 600,000 copies were sold. The Panel looked at the soft copy of the book on sale on the Amazon website and the copyright notice on the inside cover appears to suggest that the book was printed in 1996. There is an absence of any information as to what the recent sales figures are which is crucial in making any determination in relation to the reputation and goodwill in the mark “Diets Don’t Work” acquired by the Complainant.

It is not clear from the allegations made in the Complaint when the book was on the New York Times Bestseller list, recommended by the various universities, featured on the various television shows or quoted in the various magazines and journals. No evidence was submitted to substantiate these claims and if the publicity of the book occurred only in the early 1980s when the book was first published, that will affect the relevance of the promotional activities of a claim that the Complainant has common law rights in “Diet Don’t Work” mark at this time.