One panelist also finds reverse domain name hijacking.
Frank Schilling and lawyer John Berryhill have successfully defended the domain name Gabs.com in a UDRP.
Gabs S.r.l., an Italian accessories maker, filed a UDRP with Czech Arbitration Court alleging that Gabs.com was a case of cybersquatting.
Schilling registered the domain name in 2001. Gabs S.r.l. registered Gabs.it in 2002.
The domain name resolves to a parking page with topics directly related to the dictionary word ‘gabs’ such as for chat rooms.
Unsurprisingly, the three-person panel found that Schilling had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that it wasn’t registered in bad faith.
Two members of the panel said there was no reverse domain name hijacking and one member filed a dissent, saying he believes this constitutes a case of reverse domain name hijacking.
Another tidbit from the decision was that Gabs S.r.l. apparently used Register.it to make its initial overture about the domain name. That correspondence was then handed to Gabs, which used it in its complaint.
John Berryhill says
There’s an important warning in here:
Secondly, the Presiding Panelist has grave doubts as to whether the Complainant has been completely open with the Panel with respect to the negotiations to buy the Disputed domain name. The Complainant’s proposition was that “… the disputed domain name was offer (sic) for sale to the Complainant…”, which can only mean that it was offered by the Respondent to the Complainant and at the instigation of the Respondent; and yet there is nothing in the evidence to show that the negotiations commenced with an offer from the Respondent, which they did not.
Moreover, presumably this issue was promoted by the Complainant to show that the Respondent knew or should have known it was dealing with the Complainant, making it more likely that it had bought the Disputed domain name to sell to the Complainant. But the initial approach was made by email from “Brett Lalonde” firstname.lastname@example.org” and to suggest that the Respondent must have known this to be an offer from the Complainant is unpersuasive.
Looking back through historical communications, there are a number of Register.it employees who use that email address. What they do is to pretend to be interested in buying a domain name, provide a lowball figure, and then move on after they get your offer.
If you have received email from Register.it or its parent organization the Dada s.p.A. then you should be aware that they will not provide you with any notice that they are sharing your correspondence with unidentified parties. Whether this is a violation of EU privacy regulations is an exercise for the reader.
But you should specifically inquire with them whether the interested party claims to have a trade or service mark right of some kind, and you should specifically request to know whether your correspondence will be shared outside of their shady and unethical organization.
Bill Kara says
John would adding this wording to outbound replies have help in this case/future cases?
I’m wondering if it should be added to every email reply on DNS
Can Frank sue them in a real court now to recover the costs he incurred defending this and maybe some more for a deterrent from future parasites? Similar to Nat Cohens case?
Andrea Paladini says
Gabs S.r.l. is another ill-advised company … no TMs predating the domain reg date, no bad faith in use, no common law rights on the term “gabs” (which is a generic dictionary term …), etc …
Starting this UDRP was a mistake and a waste of money, just a plan B after they were not able to purchase the name.
IMHO this is a clear case of RDNH, I’m surprised to see that two panelists didn’t agree on that.
I think the UDRP procedure should be changed, introducing some sort of monetary penalties (damages and/or reimbursement of legal fees) in case of a RDNH finding, that would also act as a deterrent to groundless actions.
[A portion of this comment has been deleted at the request of the commenter]
Totally unrelated side note:
Uh oh, look who’s spreading misguided misinformation about EMDs that misleads end users and threatens our industry:
https : // smallbiztrends . com/2017/03/domain-and-hosting.html
https : // www . searchenginejournal . com/choose-a-domain-name-maximum-seo/158951/
Does Douglas M. Isenberg ever find RDNH?
The three panelists in this GABS.com UDRP were:
Douglas M. Isenberg
Avv. Ivett Paulovics
The Hon. Neil Brown, QC (Presiding Panelist)
The Hon. Neil Brown, QC said this was a case of RDNH.
The other two panelists (Douglas M. Isenberg and Avv. Ivett Paulovics) couldn’t bring themselves to find RDNH. Their reasons aren’t given in the case write-up.
We have seen Douglas M. Isenberg’s name before in the ImpossibleProject.com UDRP.
Only one panelist finds RDNH, but he writes a scathing critique.
In that case Tony Willoughby found RDNH but the other two panelists (Douglas M. Isenberg and Christopher S. Gibson) couldn’t bring themselves to find RDNH. Their reasons aren’t given in the case write-up.
Douglas M. Isenberg was also the Presiding Panelist in the Hayward.com UDRP.