Bottled water company guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
Chuan Sin Sdn. Bhd of Taiping, Perak, Malaysia has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to get the domain name Spritzer.com through a UDRP.
The complainant operates a bottled water company and uses the domain name Spritzer.com.my. (A “spritzer” in most parts of the world is a drink made of wine and carbonated water.)
It tried to get a trademark for “spritzer” in the United States but was denied. The U.S. Patent and Trademark office ultimately ruled it was “deceptively misdescriptive”.
It then filed the UDRP to get the Spritzer.com domain name and didn’t inform the panel about its failed trademark attempts.
The panel ruled in favor of domain owner Reflex Publishing on the grounds that it did not register the domain name in 1998 in bad faith.
It went a step further and found “Spritzer” guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. The panel was not asked to find RDNH, but it noted that panels should consider RDNH when it is warranted.
The three person panel wrote:
When the Complainant filed the Complaint, the Complainant knew that there was no proper basis for the Complaint yet it went ahead and filed the Complaint. This alone merits a finding of RDNH … In so doing the Complainant knew that it was accusing an innocent registrant of dishonesty (bad faith) in the hope that it could deprive the Respondent of the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Complainant knew that if the Respondent were to retain the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent would have to spend time and money and in all likelihood employ representation to defend itself. The Complainant also knew that even if it lost the case, it would not be called upon to compensate the Respondent.
There is another basis for a finding of RDNH. When the Complaint was filed the Complainant knew that the certificate of truth was false.
Reflex was represented by John Berryhill.
chad folk says
Great but NOTHING HAPPENS if found with reverse highjacking. You dont get legal expenses, you done get compensated for 3 person panel costs, etc.. There is still NO risk to file a udrp but to lose.. There needs to be a balance of paying if you lose. We can lose $100,000 for owning a domain, people trying to steal legit ownership of domains, should also have some penalty or risk?
Acro says
Chad, I believe this type of financial relief applies to .CA domains. Once again the Canadians are more progressive 😀
Lots of great names owned by Reflex Publishing, some listed at reflex.com
Kassey says
How on earth could someone even file a UDRP without first showing evidence of TM ownership?
GenericGene says
I think everyone is getting tied of domain Highjacking, It’s no different than trying to take someone’s home off them –
Rob says
Isn’t anyone else a bit concerned here?
No, not because of the decision, but because panels sometimes find RDNH in cases where it is not even requested, yet in other clear cut cases they refuse to do so even when asked.
Something funny there.
John Berryhill says
It’s not that hard to figure out.
If the Respondent is foaming at the mouth and telling the Panel they should find RDNH, then the Panel can come across as “fair minded” by denying the complaint while also denying the requested RDNH ruling, so the result can be characterized as neither party getting everything they wanted.
Rob says
I get what you’re saying.
But I ask what is more important: appearing to be fair minded or actually being fair minded? I would say both are important, but actually being fair is higher priority. Sometimes the truth needs to be said irrespective of whether someone likes it or not.
The system is the way it is, there’s little you can do about it, and you just have to work with it. But if there is a potential improvement that can be made, nothing will happen unless people speak up. Having said that, I’m sure there are many in UDRP circles that can work this system to their advantage and do not want anything to change.