Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts tagged under "reverse domain name hijacking"

  • UDRP complainant shoots self in foot with supplemental filing

    1. BY - Apr 07, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    Company effectively admits its original complaint was destined to fail when it makes supplemental filing.

    Inbay Limited of the United Kingdom has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a UDRP for Inbay.com.

    The three person panel found that Inbay should have known its complaint would fail from the outset. Perhaps more importantly, it should have known it would fail after receiving the domain owner’s response — yet it decided to file a supplemental filing anyway.

    That supplemental filing gave me a chuckle.

    Inbay.com was registered in 1998 and Inbay Limited thought the current registrant was the original one. If this were the case then Inbay.com was registered well before Inbay became a company.

    Yet in the response, the registrant noted that it didn’t actually get the name until 2007. This opened up the door for Inbay Limited to argue that it was related to some predecessor companies that were formed before the current registrant picked up Inbay.com.

    So the company filed a supplemental filing discussing these predecessor companies.

    In order to make a supplemental filing you are supposed to show that new information has come to light that you couldn’t possibly have known when making the original filing. Here’s how Inbay Limited justified the new filing:

    The stated basis for the introduction and requested admission of the Supplemental Filing was that, as the Respondent had disclosed that its date of registration of the Domain Name was in 2007, not 1998 (as alleged in the Complaint), evidence of the common law rights in INBAY held by the Complainant’s predecessors and allegedly transferred to the Complainant was relevant.

    In other words, Inbay knew its original filing was destined to fail, but now it felt like it had something to go on.

    Sigh.

    Add Inbay Limited to the reverse domain name hijacking list, and another win to domain attorney Zac Muscovitch’s tally.

  • Panel won’t find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking due to whois privacy

    1. BY - Mar 18, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 5 Comments

    UDRP panelist cites whois privacy as reason for not finding RDNH.

    A single member National Arbitration Forum panel has found in favor of the owner of Finell.com, but declined to find reverse domain name hijacking because the owner used a whois privacy service.

    The UDRP complaint was brought by Finell Co., LLC, which has its origins around 2011. Architect Filip Finell registered Finell.com in 2000 and started using it to promote his architecture firm. He later took his site down and the hosting company added a parked page to the site.

    These facts alone were enough to find in favor of the domain name owner.

    Yet panelist Kendall C. Reed declined to find Finell Co. guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. Reed noted that Filip Finell added whois privacy to the domain name in recent years and this would make it difficult for the complainant to understand the ownership of the domain name.

    Reed might be right here. If the complainant filed the case and knew that the domain was owned by someone with the last name Finell that had owned the domain since 2000, it would certainly be reverse domain name hijacking. But if the complainant didn’t know these facts because of the privacy, it’s more difficult to find the complainant at fault.

    The complainant did try to contact the domain owner through the privacy email prior to filing the complaint.

  • UNiDAYS guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

    1. BY - Jan 28, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    Company that uses MyUnidays.com tries to hijack Unidays.com.

    UNiDAYSUK company MYUNiDAYS, which offers products at a discount to college students under the UNiDAYS brand, has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a cybersquatting case.

    The company uses MyUnidays.com for its web address and filed a cybersquatting UDRP complaint against Unidays.com.

    UNiDAYS launched in 2011 and obviously chose the MyUnidays.com domain name because Unidays.com was already registered. The current registrant of the domain has owned the domain name since 2007.

    UNiDAYS made multiple offers to purchase the domain name but was unsuccessful. It then filed the dispute with World Intellectual Property Organization.

    Because Unidays.com was registered by the current owner prior to UNiDAYS even existing, it was impossible for it to claim that the domain name was registered in bad faith. Thus, the three person panel found UNiDAYS guilty of reverse domain name hijacking:

    In the view of the Panel this is a Complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant knew that the Domain Name was registered nearly 6 years before the Complainant came into existence, let alone when it acquired any rights in the UNIDAYS Mark. It made two offers to purchase the Domain Name, and following the rejection of those offers and the registration of the UNIDAYS Mark, chose to bring this Complaint.

    The complainant was represented by Actons Solicitors and the domain name was defended by John Berryhill.

    UNiDAYS UDRP reverse domain name hijacking

  • Cobb International guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

    1. BY - Jan 23, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    Company filed UDRP case even though the domain names at issue were not registered in bad faith.

    Reverse domain name hijackingSouth African firm Cobb International has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a UDRP decision at World Intellectual Property Organization.

    Cobb International filed a UDRP for the domain names CobbQ.com and CobbAmerica.com against Chris Holloway, Cobb Depot, Inc., Advanced Outdoor Concepts, Inc in Florida.

    The respondent in the case was a distributor for the complainant and registered the domain names in that capacity. The distributorship ended in 2013, at which point the complainant wanted the respondent to hand over the domain names.

    The case failed because the respondent clearly didn’t register the domain names in bad faith. Even if it used them in bad faith, its original registration was in good faith to help sell Cobb products through its business. The UDRP requires that the domain names were registered in bad faith.

    Cobb International cited another case that it won against a former distributor. Although the circumstances were similar, it was for a .au domain name. The .au policy differs from the main UDRP because it requires only bad faith use, not bad faith registration and use.

    This is where the reverse domain name hijacking comes in. When Cobb International submitted its case, its counsel DM Kisch Inc. modified the heading in the UDRP template for “Registered and used in bad faith” to just “Used in bad faith.” Panelist Tony Willoughby found this, along with other issues, to be grounds for reverse domain name hijacking.

    The Panel doubts that a firm as distinguished as the Complainant’s representative would intentionally seek to abuse this administrative proceeding, but it is nonetheless the fact that the person responsible for drafting the Complaint worked from the online form available at the Center’s website and went to the trouble of changing the template heading as described in Section 5A above to omit any reference to bad faith registration. Why?

    Even when given a chance to submit more information, Cobb International didn’t provide any evidence that the domain was registered in bad faith.

    While distributorship agreements should include language around domain names, I don’t know if any was included in this case. Even if it was, such a clause is not grounds for a cybersquatting claim under UDRP.

  • RPG Life Sciences Ltd guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

    1. BY - Jan 13, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    Company filed dispute against domain name clearly being used for another legitimate purpose.

    Pharmaceuticals and biotech business RPG Life Sciences Ltd. of Mumbai has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a domain name dispute.

    World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Nicholas Weston found that RPG Life Sciences had filed a UDRP in bad faith in an attempt to get the domain name RPGlife.com. The domain name is owned by a Wisconsin man who used the domain name to forward to a role playing game websites. RPG is a common acronym that stands for “role playing game”.

    Despite this obvious use, RPG Life Sciences argued that the domain owner registered the domain in bad faith and that he had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

    On the issue of whether or not someone could be confused by the domain name and and pharma company, Weston wrote (here):

    Applying a very conservative standard, the Panel shall refer to as the “idiot in a hurry” test, not even an idiot in a hurry could be misled that neither the Respondent’s website, nor the website it resolves to, is in any way connected with the Complainant.

    On the issue of RDNH, Weston writes:

    …the Panel considers that the Complainant’s professional representative should have appreciated, even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its application in this area, that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name is a widely recognized acronym and is being used to promote goods and services available for purchase in that field, as it had no reasonable hope of meeting the conjunctive requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

    …Finally, it should also be said that it was the Complainant who, on no evidence at all, accused the Respondent of acting in bad faith and that there was “no plausible explanation” as to the Respondent’s use (and presumably choice) of the Disputed Domain Name. That, itself, is an act of bad faith and is part of the reason why the Panel has made the finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Such allegations should not be made lightly or without cogent evidence to support them and certainly not where, after obtaining instructions, it must have been apparent to the Complainant that no such allegation could properly be made against the Respondent. Indeed, in a curious inversion of the roles of the Complainant and the Respondent, it was the Complainant who tendered evidence that the Respondent’s website was ostensibly concerned with Role Playing Games and activities associated with it and hence entirely legitimate and in good faith.

    The complainant was represented by Anand & Anand.