Panel declines to find reverse domain name hijacking despite highly questionable UDRP.
Imagine registering a four letter .com domain name for your business in 1996. You use it off and on during that period, and then twenty years later you receive a complaint that alleges you’re cybersquatting.
That’s what happened to IMEC Hosting for its domain name IMEC.com.
Imec International, which uses the domain name Imec.be, filed a UDRP against the domain name last month.
A three-person National Arbitration Forum panel unsurprisingly found in IMEC Hosting’s favor. It determined that Imec International failed to make even a prima facie case that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It also found that the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith.
Based on the decision, it appears that the complainant first tried to buy the domain name and turned to UDRP after it failed.
Despite these facts, the panel declined to find reverse domain name hijacking. Why? Well, the panel doesn’t give a reason. It just makes a terse statement that it found RDNH was not proved.
Acro says
From my understanding, when there is a valid tm, substantially aged as in this case, a finding of RDNH would require extraordinary evidence of malicious intent by the Complainant. So now they’ll have to spend at least $41,000 per the (now removed) Afternic listing – if not more.
Dan says
There are 1000 gtlds sitting unused, why do they keep trying to steal .coms, just getting more bolder by the day.
Kate says
I spotted this quote in the ruling:
Here, this case involves a 4-letter domain name, which is inherently valuable—as seen by Complainant’s willingness to pay $50,000 for it. The Panel agrees that the parties were engaged in legitimate negotiations for purchase of the domain name and have differing opinions over the market value—which cannot amount to bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Logan says
Yeah, well, given the Complainant’s bad faith action in a commercial transaction by going the UDRP route, the Respondent has every right to raise its price for this particular buyer in the transaction. What was the Complainant thinking??