Company that filed UDRP uses a truly awful domain name.
Often times a company files a UDRP because they’re using an inferior domain to the one they want.
For example, cases are filed in which the complainant owns a .tv or .net domain and the respondent owns the .com. Of course, the reason the complainant originally registered the other domain was because the .com was already taken.
That’s the case with a just-decided case for GameBreaker.com.
The domain owner registered the domain name back in 1999. The complainant claims its first rights to the GameBreaker mark in 2006. So obviously the complainant lost.
But wait until you hear what the complainant, The Gamebreaker Corp., Inc., uses for its web address. This wasn’t a matter of merely upgrade the top level domain.
r-u-a-gamebreaker.com
I seriously think I just threw up a bit in my mouth. That may be the worst domain name I’ve ever seen. Definitely bottom five.
rob sequin says
Bad panel if you ask me.
Complainant failed to prove #2 Rights or Legitimate Interests but panel still considered #3, bad faith.
Panel is supposed to stop as soon as one of three mandatory points are found in favor of respondent or against complainant.
I’m no lawyer but read enough of these to know that #3 should not have even been considered AND reverse domain name hijacking should have been found against complainant.
Now everyone can read about http://r-u-a-gamebreaker.com ‘s shameful attempt to steal a domain from its rightful owner.
Meyer says
“That may be the worst domain name I’ve ever seen.”
They know their present domain stinks because they didn’t want to waste any more money on it.
That is why RUAGameBreaker .com is not reg’d. Eventhough, they should have reg’d it as a defensive move.
Andrew Allemann says
Rob –
“Panel is supposed to stop as soon as one of three mandatory points are found in favor of respondent or against complainant.”
That’s not true. They have the option to stop, but it’s actually better if they take the time to answer all of the questions, as it’s necessary to find RDNH.
It appears the respondent wasn’t represented by counsel and didn’t ask for RDNH. Although the panel should have considered it anyway, it’s rare they they do it without being asked.