Company was formed after domain was registered and complaint omitted key information.
A dead-on-arrival “Plan B” UDRP complaint for DCAC.com has been denied, but the panelist didn’t bother to consider if it was reverse domain name hijacking. This might be because the domain name owner didn’t file an official response to the complaint.
The complainant, Denny Cherry & Associates Consulting, LLC, was formed in 2011. According to the UDRP decision, it inquired about buying the DCAC.com domain name back in 2011. The complainant ended up buying DCAC.co. Then it got a trademark for DCAC and, when the seller set a price of $6,100 for the domain, it sent a demand letter requiring transfer of the domain name upon threat of legal proceedings.
According to the decision, “Complainant alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith by attempting to hold Complainant “to ransom” for payment of USD 6,100.00 in return for the domain name.”
Historical whois records show that the current owner of the domain name registered it when it dropped in 2006, well before the complainant existed.
Panelist Debrett G. Lyons rightfully denied the UDRP. However, he failed to consider reverse domain name hijacking.
This type of case would often be considered a “Plan B” case of reverse domain name hijacking, especially since the complainant appears to have omitted key parts of its communications with the domain owner and might have provided a false date.
JohnUK says
Although not relevant to this case, I wonder whether , allegedly , knowing that “A” company is going to be formed is sufficient to show bad faith.
Anonymous says
No — the future company has no common law or registered trademark at the time of the domain name being registered. A brand name or trademark has to be FAMOUS or REGISTERED before any of the cybersquatting law applies.
John Berryhill says
In very limited circumstances, yes.
The key point there is your use of the word “knowing”. There are circumstances where someone has either some kind of inside knowledge of a company’s plans, or there has been significant pre-launch publicity. The WIPO Overview puts it this way:
—
In certain situations, when the respondent is clearly aware of the complainant, and it is clear that the aim of the registration was to take advantage of the confusion between the domain name and any potential complainant rights, bad faith can be found. This has been found to occur: shortly before or after a publicized merger between companies, but before any new trademark rights in the combined entity have arisen; or when the respondent (e.g., as a former employee or business partner, or other informed source) seeks to take advantage of any rights that may arise from the complainant’s enterprises; or where the potential mark in question is the subject of substantial media attention (e.g., in connection with a widely anticipated product or service launch) of which the respondent is aware, and before the complainant is able to obtain registration of an applied-for trademark, the respondent registers the domain name in order to take advantage of the complainant’s likely rights in that mark.
—–
JohnUK says
Thanks for your reply. I guess what would need to be then asked is ,hypothetically, “WHO exactly would that alleged “bad faith” be directed towards ” ?. Quite often the “new” company will not have been existence and therefore hard to see how “It” could hold any rights. Under trade mark laws (at least in UK) no rights (common law etc) will be inferred from a simple announcement in the media of a proposed company/ business name. I guess that may be the difference between UDRP and TM.