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.

Optilead Ltd. engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

WIPO panel determined UK company filed domain name dispute in bad faith.

UK company Optilead Ltd has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Optilead.com.

Optilead Ltd uses the domain name Optilead.co.uk for its shopping cart abandonment services. According the the World Intellectual Property Organization decision, Optilead.com was registered about 9 years before Optilead Ltd shows any trademark rights in the term Optilead.

As such, panelist Alistair Payne found that the French owner of the domain name had not registered the domain in bad faith.

Optilead Ltd had negotiated to purchase the domain name and apparently filed this UDRP as a way to “force the position” of the respondent, Alistair ruled. Alistair described why this case was brought in bad faith: Click here to continue reading…

2 panelists say RDNH, other says domain name should be transferred

How did one panelist think a domain should be transferred when the other two say the case was brought in bad faith?

It’s fairly rare that a panelist files a dissenting opinion in a UDRP. Usually a three person panel comes to the same conclusion, although occasionally you’ll see a dissent.

But a recent decision treads even further into “rare” territory: 2 panelists thought the case was so egregious, it qualified at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. A third panelist actually found in favor of the complainant.

The case pitted European giant easyGroup Limited against Hong Kong company Easy Group Holdings Limited, which registered the domain name EasyGroup.com in 1998. The domain was registered before easyGroup got any trademark rights in the name (it already ran EasyJet, but hadn’t yet become the conglomerate it is today). The respondent runs a business with the term “easy” in it. Click here to continue reading…

Wow, how was this case not reverse domain name hijacking?

WIPO panelist drops the ball in RDNH decision.

A single member World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a UDRP complaint against the domain name alessandro.com, but failed to find the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

Frankly, I’m stunned that panelist Pablo A. Palazzi did not find beauty products company Alessandro International GmbH to have brought the case in bad faith, and his rationale contradicts the facts of the case.

Alessandro International GmbH filed the complaint against Alessandro Gualandi of New York. Yes, the respondent’s name is Alessandro, and he registered his first name as a domain name.

The arguments made by the complainant are stunning: Click here to continue reading…