Wirecard nailed for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Big payments company abused UDRP policy to try to get valuable domain name for cheap.

Publicly traded payments company Wirecard AG has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Boon.com.

The company, which has a market capitalization of 4.37 billion euros, filed a UDRP after failing to acquire the domain name Boon.com for a future payments services brand.

In its complaint, Wirecard mentioned that it has been around since 1999 and had 2013 turnover of about a half billion euros. What it failed to mention, Click here to continue reading…

Doh! UDRP complainant admits domain name not registered in bad faith

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…

Organizer of “Great Run” events engaged in reverse domain name hijacking

Panel finds that group brought was attempting to reverse domain name hijack GreatRun.com.

Nova International Limited, the company that organizes the Great Run series of events, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in a UDRP for GreatRun.com.

The complainants use the domain name GreatRun.org, which it registered in 2002.

Panelist Gabriela Kennedy gave three reasons she believes Nova International brought its case in abuse of the policy: Click here to continue reading…

Orient Express Travel Group engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Australian company didn’t disclose prior purchase attempt and its rights post-dated domain registration.

A three person World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found Australian travel company Orient Express Travel Group to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

The travel company filed an aUDRP against the domain name etg.com.au. It uses the domain name etg.travel.

The panel found that Orient Express Travel Group was less-than-forthcoming in its aUDRP filing. It didn’t disclose that it first attempted to buy the etg.com.au domain name before filing for arbitration.

Also, its case was based on common law rights that the panel determined are very recent (if existent), and postdate etg.com.au’s registration date by about six years.

The complainant was represented by Norgate McLean Dolphin, and the respondent was represented by Cooper Mills Lawyers.

WIPO panel finds chemical company engaged in RDNH

Panel determines that company submitted “selective and incomplete story”.

A three person WIPO panel has found NH Resources LLC of Texas to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name No-Heat.net.

It’s a bizarre case in which the parties have already been embroiled in lawsuits, there are allegations of bribery and a host of other issues.

Without going down that rabbit hole, the panel determined that the complainants were not completely forthcoming in the UDRP. Because UDRPs have no discovery, no live hearing and no cross-examination of witnesses, panels rely on the parties to provide all of the material facts in the parties’ written submissions. That’s why complainants must sign a statement:

The Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.

According to panelists John Swinson, Gaynell Methvin and David H. Bernstein, the complainants “submitted a Complaint which told a selective and incomplete story”, including leaving out some legal proceedings.

It’s an interesting read.