Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

Displaying posts tagged under "reverse domain name hijacking"

  • Investment firm RVK engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on RVK.com

    1. BY - Jan 21, 2015
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 8 Comments

    Company changed its brand last year, filed UDRP to get matching three letter domain name.

    RVK financial

    They want the matching domain name, but would rather not pay for it.

    A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found investment advisory firm RVK (formerly R.V. Kuhns & Associates, Inc.) guilty of engaging in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name RVK.com.

    The company, aided by law firm Tonkon Torp LLP, filed a UDRP against domain name owner Gregory Ricks.

    According to the decision, the initial complaint said the firm has been using the RVK mark in commerce since April 2000. After Ricks responded that he registered the domain name before that date, RVK amended its complaint with a new affidavit claiming first use in 1992. The 1992 date relied on use in letterhead, and the panel determined that the 1992 date was unfounded.

    The panel noted that, even if the 1992 date were proven, there is still no evidence that the respondent was aware of the mark and that he engaged in bad-faith conduct. Ricks claims to have never received correspondence from RVK prior to the November 2014 UDRP filing. Click to continue reading…

  • MomAndMe.com spared in UDRP. Should have been RDNH?

    1. BY - Jan 20, 2015
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 0 Comments

    Indian company should not have brought case.

    A single member World Intellectual Property Organization panel has ruled against Mahindra & Mahindra Limited of India in its UDRP against the owner of MomAndMe.com.

    Even though the domain name owner didn’t respond, this case should have been a candidate for reverse domain name hijacking.

    The complainant claims rights dating as far back as 2007. The domain name owner appears to have registered the domain name in 2000. Case closed.

    More worrisome is how easy it is to figure out that MomAndMe.com’s owner has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name:

    • The whois reflects “Mom and Me”
    • Simply Googling the phone number in whois shows that it is a scrapbooking store in Utah. In fact, if you call the number, a friendly woman picks up the phone at the scrapbooking store.
    • Archive.org shows that the domain was previously used for a site about scrapbooking. (It no longer resolves.)

    I usually don’t blame panelists for ignoring the issue of reverse domain name hijacking when the respondent doesn’t reply to a case. But in this case, I think panelist Alistair Payne should have considered it.

  • CyclingTips.com.au owner guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

    1. BY - Nov 05, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 1 Comment

    Company went after CyclingTips.com.

    Law firm ESQwire.com has scored yet another Reverse Domain Name Hijacking victory on behalf of a client.

    Wallace Media Pty Ltd, which operates the cycling website CyclingTips.com.au, filed the case against the owner of CyclingTips.com. Wallace Media complained that people looking for its site often leave off the .au, leading them to the respondent’s domain name.

    There were a lot of issues at play in this case, including when the respondent actually registered the domain name. Fundamentally, though, this case came down to a company adopting a highly descriptive domain name and then wanting to get common law trademark protection for it.

    Wallace Media threw out a bunch of stats to show that its website is popular among Australian bicyclists. But what does that have to do with a domain name owner in Canada, who could have purchased the domain name for the same descriptive purpose? Click here to continue reading…

  • John Berryhill fills Noah’s Ark, gets another reverse domain name hijacking win

    1. BY - Nov 04, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 5 Comments

    Domain attorney defends owner of Squirrels.com in his latest animal-related UDRP.

    Domain name attorney John Berryhill is either Noah, busily filling up his ark, or he has a fetish with animals.

    He’s successfully defended UDRP filings against Pig.com, Elephant.com, Ant.com and Elk.com. Now you can add Squirrels.com to the list.

    World Intellectual Property Organization has just handed down a decision in Squirrels LLC vs. Giorgio Uzonian for the domain name Squirrels.com.

    As far as rounding up animals to get them on the ark is concerned, this was a fairly easy one. The complainant filed a completely baseless complaint, claiming rights that came at least 14 years after the respondent registered the domain name. Click here to continue reading…

  • Turkish restaurant chain guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

    1. BY - Oct 27, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 3 Comments

    Develi Restaurant chain guilty of abusing UDRP.

    DeveliA restaurant in Turkey has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name develi.com.

    The complainant runs a restaurant chain called Develi and uses the domain name DeveliKebap.com.

    A key problem for the complainant was that Develi is also the name of a city in Turkey. Although the complainant has trademarks including “Develi”, these are figurative marks as part of a drawing.

    In fact, when the complainant tried to trademark a Develi logo in the United States, it specifically disclaimed the exclusive right to use “Develi”.

    In finding the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:

    The Panel is troubled by the Complainant’s inability to provide suitable evidence to support its assertions of the extent to which it is well-known, in terms of its case that the Respondent was more likely than not to have been targeting it. More importantly, however, the Panel is concerned by the Complainant’s critical failure to address either in the Complaint or in its supplemental filing the fact that the name “Develi” holds a non-trademark meaning arising from the eponymous city. Instead, the Complainant attempts to rely upon bare averments that it is well-known, vague assertions as to the reach and extent of its restaurant chain with no supporting evidence and an unfounded submission that the Respondent is Turkish.