Owner of Spase.io is really upset about losing a UDRP for Spase.com.
An entrepreneur who was found to have tried reverse domain name hijacking the domain name Spase.com went on a twitter rant Friday, railing against the decision and calling ensuing media coverage “fake news”.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panel found that Sahil Gupta, who runs a service as Spase.io, filed a complaint against Spase.com in bad faith and in an abuse of UDRP.
He started his company last year while the domain owner, Mrs Jello, LLC, registered the domain name in 2005. Hence, it could not be registered in bad faith to target the new company.
Gupta posted a 25-part thread about how he believes he has been wronged, and then followed up with even more tweets.
The thread seems to show that Gupta doesn’t understand the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), but it also serves up some good advice for people thinking of filing a UDRP.
One of Gupta’s complaints is that he wrote “a few sentences” for the complaint, thinking “it would be obvious for the arbiters to make a decision.” Then the Respondent’s lawyers wrote a seven-page response.
Gupta made a supplemental filing to try to rebut the response. The panel read it but ultimately disregarded it out, noting :
The Panel considers that the Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental submission brings forward no new and pertinent evidence or relevant legal authority that the Complainant could not reasonably have anticipated and addressed in the Complaint.
Here’s the tweet from Gupta with good advice:
23/n For future founders: if you file a domain dispute, put all your arguments up front. Don’t expect a chance to reply. Make sure you satisfy all 3 points: your rights, their lack of rights, and their bad faith registration. I hope you don’t have to go through what Spase did.
— Sahil (@sahilAsAService) September 25, 2020
UDRP isn’t set up for back-and-forth. Complainants have to put everything on the table when they file their case, so this is good advice. And they need to make sure they satisfy all there points.
Unfortunately, Gupta still doesn’t seem to understand the three points required to win a UDRP, though. And this is where I think UDRP providers could help prevent a lot of dead-on-arrival cases, saving both entrepreneurs like Gupta and domain owners a lot of time and money.
Gupta incorrectly believes that he somehow has rights to spase.com. He tweeted:
…”We’re live as spase.io, and I believe we have legitimate rights to spase.com.”
…”We consider filing a dispute (UDRP) because we know we have the rights, but we still try the route of kindness.”
The problem for Gupta is that the domain owner registered the domain in 2005 and he founded his company last year. This means it is imposible that the domain was registered in bad faith to target his company.
It’s clear from Gupta’s supplemental filing and rant that he doesn’t understand this. It would be helpful if UDRP providers asked upfront if the Complainant believed their rights pre-date the registration of the domain. This would help dispel the false idea that the dates don’t matter. And save everyone a lot of headaches.
