Panel Tells GTMS to GTFO with RDNH

GTFO, that’s RDNH!

A World Intellectual Property Organization National Arbitration Forum panel has found satellite services company Global Transmission Media Solutions (GTMS) guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

GTMS filed a UDRP on the domain name, which was registered in 1999. That’s well before GTMS’ purported first use of the acronym as a brand.

GTMS suggested that the domain owner’s non-use of the and two other domains he owned (which were family names) was evidence of bad faith.

Here’s what the panel had to say about why this dispute was brought in bad faith:

What is rather clear from the contents of the Complaint is that the main motivation for the commencement of these administrative proceedings stems from a frustration on the part of Complainant in not having been able to obtain the domain name which corresponds to the initials of its company name and the letters in the GTMS design mark, its attempts to contact Respondent to negotiate a transfer of the domain name having failed. Complainant was clearly aware that the disputed domain name had been registered since December 1999 and should have realised from that fact alone that it had no basis whatsoever for alleging bad faith registration on the part of Respondent, which is one of the essential elements required by the Policy. To use the UDRP administrative proceeding as Complainant’s last resort to “[securing the domain name] for [its] branding to match with [its] trademark” and because of its concern “that a growing number of [its] potential customers will be unable to connect with [them]” constitutes an abuse of the proceedings…

..This was a Complaint that should never have been filed. Complainant knew that the disputed domain name was registered at least around seven years before it was incorporated and before it acquired registration rights in the GTMS design mark. The Panel therefore makes a finding, pursuant to Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceedings.

The owner of was represented by Zak Muscovitch of The Muscovitch Law Firm.


Leave a Reply