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…

Frank Schilling defends DBAT.com in UDRP

Owner of .net domain name filed cybersquatting complaint.


Nothin’ but .net!

Baseball equipment company DBAT has lost a UDRP it filed against Frank Schilling for the domain name DBAT.com. The baseball company uses the DBAT.NET domain name.

According to the decision (embedded below), DBAT originally threatened Shilling with a UDRP in 2009. It then tried to acquire the domain name through an attorney in 2012. While the details of the 2012 discussions are in dispute, it’s clear that the company tried to buy the domain name that year.

Three years after trying to buy the domain and 6 years after threatening a UDRP originally, DBAT brought a UDRP for the domain. Click 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…