Featured Domains

TrueName by donuts. Make a name for yourself

Eyeglass Company Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Eyewear company’s dates don’t add up.

reverse domain name hijackingZenni Optical, LLC, a retailer of eyeglasses, has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking by a World Intellectual Property Organization arbitrator.

Zenni Optical filed the complaint to get the domain name Zenni.com. But its dates didn’t add up. Zenni.com was registered in May 2002. But Zenni Optical didn’t register trademarks in Zenni and Zenni Optical until 2008 and 2009 respectively.

That’s where things get interesting. In a supplemental filing, Zenni Optical submitted a trademark licensing agreement between the trademark holder (which was apparently an individual) and Zenni Optical. That licensing agreement appeared to have been signed in September 2002, but referred to trademarks not obtained until 2008 and 2009. How could that be? Here’s what the arbitrator wrote:

…the license agreement is purportedly signed and dated in September 2002. At the same time, the agreement refers to the marks registered in 2008 and 2009. From this alone, it is self-evident that the agreement cannot, in fact, have been made in September 2002 but that, at the earliest, it must have been made after the registration of the second trademark in March 2009. The agreement could conceivably have been made any time up until the Complainant’s supplemental submission. Neither the Complainant nor the terms of the license agreement indicate when it was made. As such, it is not possible for the Panel to rule out the possibility that it was made after the filing of the Complaint.

Hmm. What makes the situation even more interesting is that, even if the trademarks were first used in September 2002, that would still be after the domain name was registered.

Dynadot Expired Auctions. Now offering installment payments. View auctions.

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.


No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions

Comments

    Leave a Comment

  1. Jade says

    If I were the Respondent in this case I would sue the Complaintant to get back my UDRP fees, fees for time involved responding to this bogus, theiving attempt……. and a little something for emotional distress.

    I don’t know how well the latter two would hold up, but I would certainly push my attorney to ask for those damages if he or she thought it possible. You gotta’ hit ’em where it hurts.

    I have a bank account with funds ready for just this situation now that I have been seasoned on UDRPs. I’ve won mine but now I am looking to go back and see about getting some of my UDRP fees back from the Complaintants, and in one case the lawyers, whom I have found to have been reprimanded by the bar in Texas for various ethical breaches…..some relating to UDRP filings.

    I can’t wait to bring the fight to them. 🙂

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: