Panelist calls out mass UDRP filer for automated case submission.
The case in question is on behalf of CitizenHawk client LetsTalk.com. The company tried to get LetzTalk.com, arguing that it differs by only one letter from its LetsTalk.com mark. But the complaint contained irrelevant and erroneous information, and the panelist wasn’t pleased. When CitizenHawk tried to file an additional submission, the panelist wrote:
Having carefully reviewed Complainant’s initial submission, the Panel believes that it was prepared by some sort of automatic process with little or no human review. For example, the Complaint refers throughout to “Complainant’s Mark(s)â€ and “Disputed Domain Name(s),â€ even though there is only one relevant mark and one domain name in dispute. The Complaint includes an obviously false contention regarding the timing of the registration of the disputed domain name, and includes other extraneous boilerplate material (for example, argument and authorities for the proposition that a top-level domain is irrelevant to the question of identicality or confusing similarityâ€”clearly inapplicable in this case, where the trademark includes “.comâ€).
Ouch. Panelist David E. Sorkin refused to consider the additional submission, and found that the domain name was not registered and used in bad faith.