GWG Holdings guilty of abusing policy to try to get valuable three letter domain name.
Insurance company GWG Holdings (NASDAQ: GWGH) has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to get the domain namd GWG.com.
The company filed a cybersquatting complaint under UDRP with the World Intellectual Property Organization.
GWG Holdings was incorporated in 2008, 11 years after the current owner registered GWG.com domain name. In other words, it was impossible that the owner registered the domain name in bad faith.
Amusingly, while GWG sent two demand letters to the domain name owner claiming infringement, each one also included an offer to purchase the domain name.
The three-member panel noted the importance of issuing a finding of reverse domain name hijacking in cases where it is warranted, such as the GWG.com case:
The other factor that the Panel has taken into account is the importance of preserving the integrity of the UDRP for legitimate claims, an objective that is not enhanced by declining to make a finding of RDNH in an appropriate case, of which this is one.
The domain name owner was represented by ESQwire.com.
complainant should have to pay some restitution to domain owner in these cases..
That ‘UDRP integrity’ clause should become a standard closer, especially for those (few) unscrupulous panelists who still shrink from slapping the hands that feed them with an RDNH finding.
Failing to find RDNH causes harm to the same fraudulent, overreaching clientele which those panelists are courting, and only exposes the panelist’s incompetence. All companies and professional domain investors who receive a cease-and-desist letter (laying claim to a domain which predates the mark) respond to that fraud ‘stridently.’ Either with a ‘no sale to you, ad aeternum’ or ‘market value, plus a five-figure+ penalty.’ If a grasping UDRP is filed, the softest backlash we see aligns with the minimum federal court award, at 100K USD.
There is also ‘real’ backlash, from registrants who stand for UDRP reform. These are research and SEO wonks for the most part—so that means the complainants’ environmental and safety scandals, tax fraud, skeletons in the board members’ closets, past lawsuits, complaint review pages…promptly republished, sent to investors, or bumped to the top of Google. Not to mention the bar association complaints for the violating attorney and their firm. It can be catastrophic for companies who choose to gamble on fraud, hoping that they’ll get a clueless registrant. Those losses track directly back to unscrupulous panelists, and it is urgent that all panelists repair incorrect jurisprudence and predictably find RDNH. It only creates more harm to posit that ‘the complainant relied on our old mistakes, or didn’t know better, so we’ll let RDNH slide.’ That is an utterly destructive position.
UDRP panelists must hold the bright line, that ‘predating registration triggers RDNH,’ as is done in federal court. For the benefit of both parties.
Investigation of GWG Holdings, Inc.
http://www.whitesecuritieslaw.com/tag/gwg-holdings-inc-lawsuit