Tourism group guilty of trying to hijack domain name from Digimedia.
Gold Coast Tourism Corporation Ltd. has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a UDRP over the domain name GoldCoast.com.
The case was filed against Digimedia, which was represented by John Berryhill.
The complainant, a non-profit that promotes the Gold Cost in Australia, uses the domain name at visitgoldcoast.com.
Gold Coast Tourism alleged that Digimedia asked $1 million for the domain name, which it claimed is a “totally excessive and unreasonable payment” and that this makes the registration in bad faith.
The three person panel ruled that Gold Coast Tourism proved none of the three requirements necessary to win a UDRP. It also found that the group had attempted reverse domain name hijacking, and called the case “fatally weak”.
The Complainant engaged in exchanges with the Respondent to purchase the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s own evidence indicates that the Complainant was willing to purchase the disputed domain name for USD 10,000. In those exchanges, the Complainant made no suggestion that it considered the Respondent’s registration to have been made in bad faith, or that the Respondent was otherwise infringing the Complainant’s rights.
The panelists included James Barker, Philip Argy, and Andrew Christie. The latter panelist has historically been favorable to complainants and has argued that a respondent merely has to use a domain in bad faith – not register it in bad faith – for the complainant to prevail.
Acro says
Good decision. It’s interesting to note that GoldCoast.com.au commands a lot more traffic than the monetized .com.
John Berryhill says
It was also interesting to observe that GoldCoast.com.au is not operated by the complainant in this case. It’s always weird when someone from country X is attempting to get the .com, when they don’t have the name in their own ccTLD.
jon says
Berryhill is the Man!!
Brad Mugford says
Obviously the right decision. Too bad RDNH like this don’t carry any actual penalties.
Brad
Robbie says
That is right, the price of the domain just went up $10K with all the legal fees involved. I have never seen any sort of case where the other party is guilty of sabotage, and there is no damaged awarded. It is just going to keep happening guys, I can go get a TM on any parked domain, and give it a whirl.
Kassey says
Thanks to Andrew for bringing this interesting case to our attention.
” In those exchanges, the Complainant made no suggestion that it considered the Respondent’s registration to have been made in bad faith, or that the Respondent was otherwise infringing the Complainant’s rights”
Does it mean because the complainant said nothing about bad faith registration and infringement in the mail exchange, you can use it to argue the complainant implicitly agreed that the domain holder has legitimate rights and registered it with good faith?
John Berryhill says
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0056.html
“The matter can be approached another way. What would the Complainant have done if the Respondent had accepted the Complainant’s offer of €3,000 for the Domain Name? Would the Complainant have sought to use the Respondent’s acceptance as an indication of bad faith registration and use? If €3,000 was a proper offer to make to the Respondent, why was €45,000 not a proper riposte from the Respondent? Where would it have been appropriate to draw the line?
In the Panel’s view, there is no sensible line that can be drawn. In the circumstances of this case, the mere pricing of the Domain Name at a very high level cannot in itself indicate bad faith at the time of registration.”
Michael says
I think this was the right decision. Erg, whatever happened to ethics?
-Mike (Michael)