Three domains, including a four letter .com, saved in UDRPs.
National Arbitration Forum has published three recent decisions in favor of respondents.
Although none of them resulted in findings of reverse domain name hijacking, some of the complaints had serious deficiencies.
In Rive.com, the domain owner registered the domain 2004, well before the complainant had any rights in the mark.
In the panelists’ words, the complainant also argued that since the respondent owned about 25 other domains, he was a cybersquatter. The panel noted that none of those other domains appeared to infringe trademarks, at least on the surface.
The panel determined that the complainant failed to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain, and also determined it wasn’t registered in bad faith.
Still, it did not find reverse domain name hijacking.
But it did offer this money line:
The Panel finds that because Respondent makes a business of selling domain names, the offer to sell the domain name at issue cannot be considered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
In the GoodTherapy.com case, the complainant owns the matching .org. Despite the respondent not replying to the case, the panel ruled against the complainant. The complainant didn’t even get past the first prong of UDRP, that the domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
The AspenHeights.com case was brought by the owner of MyAspenHeights.com.
This case decision is so poorly formatted that it’s difficult to follow each side’s claims. But the registration and use in bad faith section is fairly clear: The three panelists unanimously found in favor of the respondent on this prong, ruling that the complainant didn’t show it had trademark rights in the term that predated the respondent’s registration. The respondent was represented by Brian Hall of Traverse Legal.
Leave a Comment