Panelist questions bad faith claim despite no response from domain name owner.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has correctly denied a UDRP filing for Zeca.com, despite the complainant having a long-standing trademark for Zeca and the domain name owner not responding to the dispute.
Zeca.com is parked but doesn’t have ads for auto parts and auto mechanic accessories, which is the complainant’s business.
Panelist Ian Lowe questioned the evidence that the domain was registered in bad faith and that its owner, Domain Vault LLC, would have been familiar with the Italian company:
Accordingly, in the Panel’s view, the Complainant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant or such rights as it had in the Mark at the date of registration of the Domain Name. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Complaint to support an argument that by virtue of the use to which the Respondent has put the Domain Name it should be inferred that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.
Zeca uses the domain name Zeca.it.
The domain owner is currently involved in a number of lawsuits.
There’s an interesting respondent (Domain Vault LLC). They’re suing not only UDRP reverse domain name hijackers, they’re suing the US Code-violating attorney as well? No quarter given. Good for them.
https://www.law360.com/articles/641123/bryan-cave-atty-escapes-domain-name-trademark-suit. That Colorado federal judge ruled that Domain Vault’s ECLINICALWORKS.COM was generic. So one would hope to shout that a UDRP panelist would know that ZECA.COM is generic. 11.5M pages containing ‘zeca’…154 ‘zeca’ trademark filings in the WIPO global brand database…
Thousands of people are misspelling the ‘zika’ virus—was the Complainant grasping at the traffic uptick? Maybe pregnant women buy a lot of industrial hose reels. (‘Why yes. Since I’m inadvertently here, I do need a hose reel. Later for you, fetal skull collapse.’)
The Complainant left ZECA.COM alone for 14 years. What a shame this filing couldn’t just be disqualified at the door by laches. A decade passes = your issue is moot. Do not pass go, do not rob a registrant of 5K in legal fees in pursuit of a name which you’ve proved is inconsequential to your business. Seems more than fair.