HugeDomains gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking win

Complainants first tried to buy domain before filing UDRP.

FPT Industrie S.p.a. and REM Industrie S.r.l. have been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in a domain dispute they brought against domain investor HugeDomains.

The companies, which use the domain fptfastmill.com, filed a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization for the domain name FastMill.com.

HugeDomains pointed out that the complainant first tried to buy the domain and subsequently filed a trademark application for Fast Mill before filing the complaint. The complainants do have a trademark for FPT Fast Mill.

The decision has good language for domain name investors, pointing out that the registration of generic and dictionary term domain names for resale can establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:

In this case, the Complainants filed the Complaint only after its attempt to purchase the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent was unsuccessful (i.e. the Respondent did not respond to any of the Complainants’ offers). The general weak nature of the Complaint, the lack of evidence and the Complainants failure to fully address the 3 requirements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy demonstrates that the Complainants were likely aware that they did not have a legitimate case against the Respondent, and filed the Complaint with the primary intent of obtaining the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. This is supported by the fact that the Complainants only sought to apply for the registration of the FAST MILL mark in Italy after its offer to purchase the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent remained unanswered. It is also clear that this was done in a misguided attempt to bolster or lend legitimacy to the Complaint. The Complainants also misrepresented the facts of the case in the Complaint. For example, the Complainants state that the Disputed Domain Name “has been offered for selling to the complainant [sic]”. However, no such offer was directly made to the Complainants – it was the Complainants who approached the Respondent and offered to purchase the Disputed Domain Name for USD 1,500.