In a common occurence, company fails to disclose prior corresondence and misleads panel.
Here’s a common pattern in cybersquatting disputes under the UDRP:
A company reaches out to the domain name owner in an effort to either buy the domain or coerce the domain owner into transferring it on the threat of legal action. The domain owner responds and explains why he or she is not cybersquatting, and the complainant lets the matter lie. Then, out of the blue many years later, the complainant files a UDRP and doesn’t mention the prior correspondence between the parties.
Sometimes this is because the people responsible for filing the case weren’t knowledgeable about the prior attempts. Sometimes they were and thought they could slip it by.
In fact, some companies leave out key information or even try to mislead a panel with the hopes that the domain owner won’t respond, so no one will call it on its malfeasance and the domain will be transferred.
That’s what appears to have been the goal in a case Mexican company Proeza, S.A. filed against the French owner of Proeza.com. Click here to continue reading…