Company filed UDRP against dictionary term in reverse domain name hijacking attempt.
Informa Business Information, a company that publishes information about the biopharma industry called The Pink Sheet, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking for the domain name PinkSheet.com.
The decision isn’t surprising; when I saw the domain name I immediately thought of the dictionary term of Pink Sheets referring to investments.
A three-member World Intellectual Property Organization panel determined that the domain’s owner did not register and use the domain in bad faith. It also decided that it was very unlikely the domain was registered to target the complainant.
The panel ruled that Informa Business Information filed the case in bad faith:
Although the Complainant maintains that the true date of registration of the disputed domain name was unclear (and the Panel notes the Complainant’s change of position in this regard), there is no evidence on the record that the Respondent set out to target the Complainant. With the benefit of experienced intellectual property advisors, the Complainant should have been aware that, in these circumstances, its Complaint could not succeed. However and presumably in an effort to acquire the disputed domain name with minimal cost, it proceeded with the claim regardless. This is an abuse of the Policy and the Panel therefore finds this to be a case of reverse domain name hijacking.
Informa was represented by Stobbs IP Limited. This isn’t the first time Stobbs has been on the wrong end of a reverse domain name hijacking case. In a case for Cambridge.com, the panel found that the complainant “seriously misdescribed” the contents of the website.
The decision includes additional language about the fair price for domain names that should be well received by domain investors:
Since acquisition by the Respondent or its associated group entities, the disputed domain name appears to have resolved to a place keeper site that features an invitation to purchase the disputed domain name. As the Respondent is in the business of domain name broking, this is hardly surprising. Neither is the fact that the Respondent requested a purchase price of USD 100,000 following the Complainant’s unsolicited enquiry of it in August 2017. As in any market for commodities, domain name broking is about matching supply with demand; in the absence of any indicia of bad faith, there is nothing wrong per se with what the Complainant characterises as an “excessive offer.”
The domain owner was represented by Wiley Rein LLP.