One firm, two RDNHs in the same day.
Over the past twenty-four hours, I’ve written about two reverse domain name hijacking cases at World Intellectual Property Organization.
A reverse domain name hijacking finding means a case was filed in bad faith as an abuse of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
Both of these cases were filed with the help of Stobbs IP, a UK intellectual property law firm. Both the decisions were handed down on December 11. I can’t recall any law firm getting hit with reverse domain name hijacking with two different clients in the same day.
Stobbs IP also represented University of Cambridge in a 2015 case it lost against the domain name Cambridge.com. Although that panel declined to find reverse domain name hijacking, it said the filing “seriously misdescribed” the contents of the Cambridge.com website.
So, in addition to helping a client file a case in which a panel said it “seriously misdescribed” a key element of its case, panelists have now written these comments about cases it filed:
“The Complainant attempted to mislead the Panel on several occasions by presenting information as fact, which at closer examination was misleading or untrue.”
“The Complainant was legally represented and should have known that it would be unable to satisfy all the elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.”
“…the Complainant was likely aware that it 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 against no consideration.”
“With the benefit of experienced intellectual property advisors, the Complainant should have been aware that, in these circumstances, its Complaint could not succeed.”