Domain was allegedly registered well before company started using name.
National Arbitration Forum panelist Dennis A. Foster has turned in a UDRP decision in favor of the respondent for the domain name IAFT.com. The case was filed by International Academy of Film and Television (IAFT International LLC), and the case was dead on arrival — at least based on the facts presented in the case.
IAFT claims to have started using IAFT in 2003, three years after the owner of IAFT.com claims to have registered the domain name. Yet it still tried to argue that the domain name was registered in bad faith.
It even made an impossible claim (if the domain was registered by the respondent in 2000) in an additional filing, that “Respondent’ true intent has always been to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant at the highest price possible”.
How could he do this unless we was psychic? Making such a bogus claim in an additional submission seems rather misleading.
I actually question if the respondent registered the domain in 2000 based on historical whois records, but the complainant didn’t seem to challenge this.
According to the domain name owner, IAFT has been trying to buy the domain name from him since 2005 and never mentioned a trademark.
And the complainant says that IAFT.com, while parked, never showed links related to the complainant.
Despite this, the panelist declined to find reverse domain name hijacking. He declined based on the complainant prevailing in two prongs of the UDRP.
I don’t think this should overcome a case so devoid of merit, at least based on the facts that were considered.
IAFT’s lawyer was Charles Carreon. If that name is familiar to you, here’s why.
Joe says
While the post is very interesting because I have another set of domain name hijacking several ICANN accredited registrars.
Here write my question IAFT attorney. If a domain name. Com or dot-Net. or dot-info be using the register to get an economic benefit from ppc domain parking programs or Google and that the owner, registrant, administrative contact, billing contact, technical contact for more than 20 TLD domain names can not use to earn money and have traffic then eventually to sell and to be many names premium domain to hold to be able to recover my dignity as the owner of a well-renew from year 2008 to the present to keep its value if there USA any legal way you can tell which to welcome me as the UDRP for these registers companies and have them a vaccine that saves everything but many like to write to you.
ronaldo says
Many cases have found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because Complainant knew or should have known that it would be unable to prove at least one or two of the elements needed to prevail. For example: womantowomanhealthcenter.com, phoneid.com, digilove.com, xpand.com, etc.
In this case, the Complainant, IAFT International LLC claimed to have started using IAFT in 2003, three years after the owner of domain name IAFT.com claimed to have registered the domain name, so would have known that it couldn’t prove the 3rd element, yet still brought this UDRP case. So why No Reverse Domain Name Hijacking?