2 domain name owners don’t respond but win UDRPs

Panelists do their job by evaluating cases on their merits.

The owners of Marlboro.reviews and PoolFactory.com can keep their domain names, despite not responding to UDRPs.

Although respondents can win a UDRP without responding, panelists typically give the benefit of the doubt to the complainant in these cases. In one recent case, a panelist even asked the complainant to amend the case to make it easier to side with it!

One of the two cases was brought by The Pool Factory, Inc for the domain name PoolFactory.com. Panelist Steven Maier noted that parking a domain name and owning lots of domain names (as the respondent did) is not necessarily a sign of bad faith. The complainant also shot itself in the foot by trying to buy the domain name and other similar ones: Click to continue reading…

Panelist asks complainant to modify its case to snag domain registered in 1995

Domain wasn’t registered in bad faith, but panelist asks complainant to make a different argument.

I’m dumbfounded.

A single member UDRP panelist with National Arbitration Forum has ordered the domain name VideoLink.com be transferred — after, apparently, asking the complainant to modify its argument to the panelist’s liking.

VideoLink, Inc. said it started using the VideoLink term in commerce in 1999. Xantech Corporation registered the domain name in 1995, so the respondent could not have registered the domain name in bad faith.

Some complainants have argued that the relevant date for registration in a UDRP is when a domain name is renewed. In other words, a domain name can be renewed in bad faith. Only a handful of panelists have accepted this view.

But in this case, according to panelist Bruce Meyerson’s decision, he actually asked the complainant to make this argument so he could order the domain name transferred. Click here to continue reading…

Stolen domain GPZ.com recovered through cybersquatting claim

National Arbitration Forum panel orders stolen domain name be returned to its longtime owner.

An allegedly stolen three letter domain name has been returned to its previous owner through a UDRP cybersquatting claim.

Mountain View, California software company GPZ Technology, Inc. registered GPZ.com in 1996. The domain name was apparently stolen from its 1&1 domain name registrar account earlier this year and transferred to Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC. GPZ provided a police report to the panel.

Although GPZ Technology doesn’t have any registered trademarks for GPZ, panelist Neil Anthony Brown QC determined that it had common law rights in the term.

In cases of alleged theft, panelists will often give the benefit of the doubt to the complainant, especially when the alleged thief doesn’t respond to the allegations.

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…

Major.com UDRP denied, but no RDNH

A UDRP for a major domain name.

Major.comA single member World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a UDRP filed by Major Wire Industries Limited against the owner of Major.com. Panelist Christopher S. Gibson declined to find reverse domain name hijacking, though.

Major Wire Industries has been around since the 1800s, and decided to go after Major.com some 130 years after it was founded (and 20 years after Major.com was first registered).

The company tried to buy the domain name, but didn’t approve of the $115,000 price tag on the valuable domain name. I found its claim around this rather amusing:

A representative of Complainant then successfully contacted a representative of Respondent to inquire about acquiring the Domain Name. Respondent, through its representative, Sergei Arsentiev, then offered to sell the Domain Name for USD 115,000. Complainant states that Respondent did not provide a breakdown of this fee or any explanations as to why the requested amount was so high. Complainant has estimated that the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name are USD 30 per year, meaning that since registration, Respondent would only have spent USD 150 for the Domain Name.

Hmm, let’s see. Why could Major.com’s price be “so high”? The complainant already argued that the current domain owner wasn’t the original, so the argument that “respondent would only have spend USD 150 for the Domain Name” doesn’t hold water. Click here to continue reading…