Panelist orders generic domain be transferred to local startup accelerator.
A National Arbitration Forum has ordered the transfer of the domain name Galvanize.com in a highly questionable decision.
At every turn in deciding the case, NAF panelist Dr. Reinhard Schanda gave the benefit of the doubt to complainant Galvanize LLC. That said, the respondent could have put up a better case.
Respondent Brett Blair / ChristianGlobe Network bought the domain name in an expired domain auction at NameJet in September 2011 for $2,331. He did not mention this purchase price and the circumstances in the response, apparently.
The complainant filed a trademark for “Galvanize” in May 2012 claiming a first use in November 2011.
That alone should have been enough to show that the respondent didn’t register and use the domain in bad faith.
Apparently Galvanize LLC filed an affidavit claiming that it had actually used the brand for its startup accelerators businesses prior to this first claim date. Although it provided more evidence of use of the brand, the panelist didn’t state that this evidence predated the respondent’s domain purchase.
It’s highly unlikely that Galvanize had taken on a secondary meaning and was well known, especially where the respondent lives (Florida) at the time he registered the domain. It appears the complainant’s Galvanize.it domain was just registered in June 2011.
I’d bet this domain was registered as an investment for its generic meaning.
Based on my reading of the response, the respondent focused on a plan for legitimate use rather than stating that this was a purchase of a generic domain, which is legitimate.
In fact, the panel wrote:
In the Panel’s opinion the most realistic interpretation of the actions of the Respondent is that he registered the Domain Name in the hope that he might be able to sell it at a significant profit to the Complainant or alternatively to someone who could use the Domain Name to his commercial advantage by engaging in the activity contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
So what?
It’s highly unlikely that he registered it with the complainant in mind. He probably had know idea the complainant existed, unless he happened to traveled forward in time.
The complainant also says it corresponded with a broker from DomainHoldings that said the domain was for sale for $100,000. The respondent does not recall ever engaging with DomainHoldings.
This is not a clear cut case of cybersquatting. This was a bad decision.
Joseph Peterson says
It’s very arrogant of the startup to imagine that it has special rights to a word used by billions of people in various ways for a century and a half.
If they want to control an instance of this word, they should pay for the privilege.
Mike says
These Complainants make me sick. The only and best response is to issue legal proceedings and force the complainant in to Court ,where the Respondent should retain the domain .
Meyer says
We all know 2 steps must be taken immediately upon receiving a UDRP complaint.
1. Hire an IP lawyer. He did that.
2. Request 3 panelist. THEY did not do that.
At this point, he was already at a disadvantage.
Maybe, he figured he only paid $ 2,300. so why spend an add’l $ 5,000. I guess he figured he would save $ 1,000. (?) on his share of the 3 panel cost.
Mark says
Because many idiots such as Dr. Reinhard Schanda grant domain names to complainants without sufficient evidence and because UDRP is risk-free and cheap, we see and will see many other parties to claim their right to domain name they do not want to buy and many of such complainants will get those domain names, even they should not. I wish somebody has courage to sue some panelist for damage, so we would see a precedence that would force panelist to think twice before they make their UDRP decisions in regards to transfer of domain name.
Steve says
Another example of the system helping complaintants steal generic domains. Sad day.
Patricio says
Dr. Reinhard Schanda is not worthy of the title Dr.
What a nutty guy to come to this conclusion. Just sick.
Reality says
This is basically criminal. It’s also disgusting that domain owners should be out of pocket for frivolous UDRP/NAF cases, and then need to spend ten of thousands of dollars on lawyers.
Reality says
What if the respondent didn’t have enough money to afford a three member panel? He just loses his property. Is there any way we can reach out to the respondent and crowdfund a legal attack against the complainant? We could possibly try to bankrupt them with a law suit and set an example to others. Can we mount a class action against NAF and get them shut down? Something needs to be done about this urgently and there are enough domainers that could donate a hundred bucks to destroy the complainant financially.
The Respondent says
Small domainers should create some type of legal fund (some type of committee that decides where the funds are best spent). That way when these bogus UDRP complaints arise they there are funds to tackle it . Well some might think, that’s that dudes problem. I say no. It’s the problem of all domainers. Why? Because now this bogus case has set a precedent. And it only weakens the process in favor of these and future idiotic complainants and there complaints. Either domainers start getting their act together or the writing is on the wall.