WIPO panelist doesn’t bother to consider a sure-fire reverse domain name hijacking claim.
I realize UDRP panelists aren’t paid much to handle cases, but there must be a minimum standard here.
Why the frustration? Take a look at the recently decided case for Cite.com.
The owner of the domain name registered it in 1997 and started a business called CitÃ© Consulting. The complainant Systemware, Inc. didn’t start using the term “CITE” in commerce until 2011.
I understand that Systemware may not have been aware that the domain owner had a consulting company using the domain name. But the 14 year difference between his registration and the company’s first use of the term is enough to make this case a complete joke.
The respondent rightfully asked for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
But in one of the shortest UDRP decisions I’ve ever read, panelist Christopher J. Pibus didn’t even bother to consider RDNH.
Update: I have received a copy of the original complaint. Systemware’s lawyers cited Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows as rationale for how the domain could have been registered in bad faith if used later in bad faith. Also, the owner of the domain name belatedly discovered that the lawyers had sent an email inquiring about purchasing the domain, although he missed the email originally.