Company was formed after domain was registered and complaint omitted key information.
A dead-on-arrival “Plan B” UDRP complaint for DCAC.com has been denied, but the panelist didn’t bother to consider if it was reverse domain name hijacking. This might be because the domain name owner didn’t file an official response to the complaint.
The complainant, Denny Cherry & Associates Consulting, LLC, was formed in 2011. According to the UDRP decision, it inquired about buying the DCAC.com domain name back in 2011. The complainant ended up buying DCAC.co. Then it got a trademark for DCAC and, when the seller set a price of $6,100 for the domain, it sent a demand letter requiring transfer of the domain name upon threat of legal proceedings.
According to the decision, “Complainant alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith by attempting to hold Complainant “to ransom” for payment of USD 6,100.00 in return for the domain name.”
Historical whois records show that the current owner of the domain name registered it when it dropped in 2006, well before the complainant existed.
Panelist Debrett G. Lyons rightfully denied the UDRP. However, he failed to consider reverse domain name hijacking.
This type of case would often be considered a “Plan B” case of reverse domain name hijacking, especially since the complainant appears to have omitted key parts of its communications with the domain owner and might have provided a false date.