Company filed UDRP for domain name that was registered before it existed.
Starpixel Marketing LLC dba Vape Magazine has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking for the domain name VapeMagazine.com.
VapeMagazine.com was registered in 2011. The complainant founded Vape Magazine about a year later and launched a site at vapenewsmagazine.com. It tried to buy VapeMagazine.com in 2014 but was rebuffed.
The panel noted:
Complainant knew that Respondent registered the disputed domain name well before Complainant began its business, and nearly two and a half years before it began using VAPE MAGAZINE in commerce. The Panel finds that it was bad faith Reverse Domain Name Hijacking to allege bad faith registration under these circumstances, especially given Complainant’s tenuous claim of rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Indeed, this case shouldn’t have been filed. It was dead on arrival.
Vape Magazine was represented by The Ingber Law Firm. The respondent was represented by Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP.
John Berryhill says
This crap has really gotten out of hand.
Kurios says
Absolutely correct decision by panelist Lawrence K. Nodine who denied the case and finding RDNH.
“A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is warranted if the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy.”
Why no RDNH in these two other recent UDRP’s: bootler.com and thebeachpeople.com??
To establish bad faith for the purposes of the UDRP Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that it has been used in bad faith.
In both these cases specialist IP attorneys would have known that they proving bad faith registration was impossible. They would have there been fully aware that that one of the three elements in Policy ¶ 4(a), namely bad faith registration, was absent”, but they still filed their cases regardless, causing the respondent time and expense to defend.
bootler.com case registered 12 years prior
complainant was represented by Tanja Proehl of specialist Intellectual law firm Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1677296.htm.
thebeachpeople.com registered 14 years prior
Complainant was registered by Jay Schloff Intellectual Property attorney at Aidenbaum Schloff and Bloom PLLC Michigan, USA
http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1675767.htm
marshalladame says
Years ago, before it became a “thing to do” I began buying Domains relative to things that interested me. (Sort of like baseball cards, just collected them).
But what is going on today is crazy… I am going to get rid of all but the Domains relative to my own business and get out of the Domain world all together. Too much craziness.
Barnes says
Many had hoped for salvation with the new gtlds. Now that it is becoming obvious that they seem to be all or mostly crap, I have noticed a renewed interest in frivolous udrps against the .com as in the case at hand.
Wallace says
The complainant was represented by The Ingber Law Firm.
Spotted this in the News http://www.ingberiplawyer.com/in-the-news/ March 2016 – The Vapor Attorney® Protects Client Trademark by Filing Suit and Having Infringing Products Removed and Restitution and Damages Paid to Client.
The Vapor Attorney® indeed an impressive title, so must be a specialist in this field.
I guess it’s you win some, you lose some.
Chris Baken says
Going by a self proclaimed title doesn’t make you as equally impressive or qualified. But, let us say for a moment The Ingber Law Firm is as impressive and qualified as their self proclaimed title suggests. They should be equally experienced, qualified and informed of the facts and history of these types of cases as was the panelist Lawrence K. Nodine, and should have never attempted or have advised to attempt; a case like this.
I actually feel a certain level of sympathy for Starpixel Marketing LLC, for being led to believe they should actually follow through with a case like this. This is now, not only a permanent record of Starpixel Marketing LLC’s attempts to hijack or steal a domain name and or brand, but also reflects as borderline malpractice against The Ingber Law Firm.
With the amount of coverage this case received across the internet, Starpixel Marketing LLC’s and Vape News Magazine’s public image is now permanently damaged with attempted theft. If I was Starpixel Marketing LLC I would be seeking to recover damages against The Ingber Law Firm.