…but trail the growth in domain name registrations.

National Arbitration Forum (NAF) has released its official numbers for 2012 UDRP cases.

Combined with World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) results, the number of UDRP cases filed last year appears to have edged up slightly.

NAF reported a total of 2,060 cases for 2012 last year, which was 22 fewer than in 2011. WIPO earlier reported 2,884 cases, up from 2,764 in 2011.

Between the two biggest UDRP providers, that’s a 2% increase from 2011 to 2012.

This doesn’t include results from Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre and Czech Arbitration Court, but neither of those groups receive a substantial number of cases.

Meanwhile, the total number of domain names registered (pdf) increased by nearly 12% in 2012.

Consumer products giant provided false sales numbers to WIPO panel.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found Procter & Gamble guilty of attempted reverse domain name hijacking over the domain swash.com.

Marchex has owned the domain name since 2004. P&G launched a new brand called Swash several years later.

In its complaint, P&G originally stated that it had generated more than $40 million in Swash sales over the past four years. It also claimed some trademark rights going back to 1993.

The respondent’s attorney, John Berryhill, was suspicious of the sales number. After being pressed, P&G admitted that it actually made sales of only $60,000.

Also, the 1993 trademark was actually assigned to P&G after Marchex owned the domain and it was not valid in the United States.

The three person panel found that it was impossible Marchex could have known of P&G’s Swash brand when it acquired the domain name because the brand didn’t even exist. It wouldn’t exist for several more years.

In finding P&G guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, the panel noted that both the company and its attorneys, Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, have been involved in numerous UDRP proceedings. The panel found it “impossible to believe” that P&G wasn’t aware of the Swash.com domain name prior to introducing its original product line.

But the really damaging part was the initial claim to $40 million in sales:

The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000. Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

If you’re wondering why P&G is suddenly interested in this domain name after many years of marketing a failed brand, perhaps a recent trademark filing is a clue.

In September 2011, P&G filed a trademark application on an intent-to-use basis with an opposition period that expired shortly before the complaint was filed. The specification of goods reads “An appliance for domestic use in the nature of a garment steamer for the purpose of removing wrinkles and odors from clothing and linen”.

Is P&G getting ready to launch a new product under the Swash name, so now it wants to get control of the corresponding domain?

Company claimed rights to domain registered in 1996, well before it started using the name as a brand.

Irvine, California eCommerce technology company Eyemagine Technology LLC has been found by the World Intellectual Property Organization to be guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

The company, which says it started using the Eyemagine brand in 2003, filed the complaint against a construction company that registered the domain eyemagine.com way back in 1996.

The construction company has used the domain name for its construction business from time to time. In 2010 it also registered eyemagine.info, which was included in the UDRP proceeding.

Despite Eyemagine’s creative arguments as to why a domain registered many years before it started using the Eyemagine mark was registered in bad faith, the panel found against it. It also found that the complaint was brought in bad faith. Here’s how it describes the reverse domain name hijacking:

In this case, there are several indications that Complainant was acting in bad faith. Given the record, it strains credulity that Complainant did not know or should not have known that it could not establish Respondents’ lack of legitimate interests or Respondents’ bad faith registration and use for at least one of the Domain Names. The Panel, in particular, notes:

(1) For the Domain Name, the several-year gap between Respondents’ domain name registration year (1996), Complainant’s earliest filing year for its mark registrations (2009), Complainant’s earliest “use in commerce” year for its mark registrations (2003), and the year in which Complainant allegedly acquired common law rights in the mark (2003)—Complainant clearly should have known that Respondents’ registration of pre-dated any claims in the mark Complainant might have had.

(2) For the Domain Name, Complainant itself cited Respondents’ use of the mark and Domain Name in conjunction with the deck and patio construction business several years prior to any rights that Complainant purports to have acquired.

(3) To the extent that Complainant believed it might establish registration in bad faith for the Domain Name on a constructive notice theory, Complainant should have known that UDRP panels have required that bad faith be predicated on actual notice by respondent absent more evidence that the mark is famous (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.4).

(4) To the extent that Complainant believed it could convince the Panel to depart from requiring bad faith registration and use conjunctively—on the theory that Respondents were relying upon an initial good faith registration to use a domain name in bad faith with impunity—Complainant clearly should have known that, at minimum, it would need to bring evidence of Respondents’ abuse. The sole evidence Complainant appears to have brought is Respondents’ general unresponsiveness to the bargaining tactic of offering the same amount of money to purchase the Domain Names three times.

It is no excuse that Complainant may not be familiar with clear Policy precedent, the Policy, or the Rules.

Eyemagine was represented by The Law Office of Darius Gleason. The respondent was represented by Perry IP Group A.L.C.

Zoo moved slower than a turtle but will now get CincinnatiZoo.com.

It took them a while, but one of the nation’s oldest zoos now has its .com domain name.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has ordered the domain name CincinnattiZoo.com be transferred to the Zoological Society of Cincinnati, dba Cincinnati Zoo.

The zoo has used the domain name cincinnatizoo.org since 2001, which was the same year the .com was registered. A lot of people likely went to the .com domain, but it begs the question “why did it take so long for the zoo to file the complaint?”

Over the past year, UDRP panels have been more willing to consider delays in filing complaints as a factor in their decision.

Panelist Tony Willoughby discussed this delay (laches) in his decision, but ultimately decided in the zoo’s favor. It didn’t help that the domain owner didn’t reply to the complaint.

What is surprising to the Panel is that the Complainant has taken no action until now. It seems inconceivable to the Panel that the Complainant cannot have been aware of the Domain Name since at least September 8, 2001 when it registered its domain name, . Checking the status of the “.com” equivalent of the Domain Name would have been an obvious step to take.

The Panel is aware that there is currently a debate among some panels as to whether “laches” is a defence to a complaint under the Policy. The Policy makes no mention of “laches” (or delay) and the Panel sees no reason to introduce such a concept. In many of the cases where panels have dismissed complaints on the basis of delay, the complaints could easily have failed on other grounds (e.g. lack of bad faith). In this case, the Respondent has not sought to argue the point and, in any event, such delay as there has been has been of no commercial disadvantage to the Respondent. The Respondent has simply had more time than it might reasonably have expected in order to derive a commercial benefit through use of the Domain Name. Moreover, it is not as if the commercial use that the Respondent has made of the Domain Name over the last 11 years has given to the Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Intelligence firm wants to take down site that discusses 2011 hacking incident.

Stratfor Enterprises, LLC, an intelligence firm that was famously hacked in 2011, is trying to get control of a domain commemorating the attack.

The company has filed a complaint with World Intellectual against the owner of Stratfor.co.

Stratfor.co shows an image of what Stratfor.com looked like after it was hacked and defaced in 2011. The hack, carried out my members of anonymous, resulted in the disclosure of thousands of customer credit card numbers and company emails. In 2012 Wikileaks published many of the emails.

The whois record for Stratfor.co shows a registrant in Arizona. It’s not clear what the registrant’s purpose of creating the site is.

[Update: Stratfor won the case.]