Complainant tries to argue that domain name owner forfeited rights to domain name by not using it.
A simple call to a lawyer could have prevented a Minnesota dog charity from being labeled a reverse domain name hijacker.
Can Do Canines, which owns the domain name can-do-canines.org, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name candocanines.org.
The respondent didn’t have to do much to persuade panelist Nathalie Dreyfus. After all, the complainant admitted the domain name wasn’t registered in bad faith. It was registered before the complainant started using the brand. Instead, Can Do Canines argued that the respondent forfeited rights to the domain name by not doing anything with it for seven years.
Yeah, that’s not going to fly.
Panelists often give clueless complainants who don’t have a lawyer a pass on RDNH. But, even with a clueless complainant, the owner of the domain name felt compelled to hire an attorney. So RDNH was definitely the right call.
Now if only the respondent could get his attorney’s fees paid…
Roberto says
Yes, please! We are long overdue on a provision to protect innocent Respondents such as this. Presently, none exists and a UDRP costs much to defend, yet a RDNH victory pays zero. So, even if the Respondent wins, he loses.
Roberto says
Also, as the gtlds continue their descent to worthlessness, I think we will see more frivolous udrps such as this. Something will need to be done soon.