Dispute between two parties over Viking.com domain name is clearly outside the confines of UDRP.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has determined that Office Depot’s ownership of Viking.com does not constitute cybersquatting. It also found that the complainant Aurelius RHO GTM Development Limited engaged in reverse domain name hijacking by filing a cybersquatting dispute over the domain name.
The complainant acquired Office Depot’s European Viking business at the end of 2016. It claims that the Viking.com domain name should have included in the sale even though it wasn’t listed on the intellectual property list for the transaction. Office Depot claims that the domain wasn’t included as part of the deal.
Backing up Office Depot’s case, Aurelius tried to buy the domain name from Office Depot afterward. It was unsuccessful.
Office Depot says that Aurelius’ UDRP filing was a last ditch effort to try to get the domain and prevent Office Depot from selling it to someone else.
Indeed, the dispute was doomed to fail. It would be impossible to show that Office Depot registered the domain in bad faith since it acquired it for its Viking office products business.
The three-person panel wrote:
Perhaps the most striking deficiency, however, which is sufficient in this Panel’s mind to establish RDNH, is the lack of any allegations in the Complaint as to how the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. But looking at the circumstances in their entirety, it is not difficult to understand why there are no such allegations – the facts at hand simply do not provide any basis for them. This disregard of such a striking deficiency in the Complainant’s case is enough to sustain a finding of RDNH, and accordingly, the Panel so finds.
SO WHAT!!!
As long as their are no financial consequences for these domain theft attempts, they will continue.
The complainant acquired the European Viking business from Office Depot but neglected to ensure that Viking.com was included in the sale? Big miss on their part.
Or, possibly the knew it wasn’t included but wanted to get it anyway.
Until there are serious fines levied against those charged with RDNH, nothing will change.
The sad part is, WIPO has control over forcing a domain transfer, but has absolutely zero control of preventing abuse of their current system. Multiple proceeds cite “it was a last ditch effort.”
Quick brainstorm to resolve: When you pay for your dispute, there is a $5,000 hold put on your credit card until the dispute is cleared of RDNH (doesn’t have to be resolved, just cleared of RDNH). If your dispute is deemed RDNH, WIPO splits the $5,000 with the defendant or WIPO keeps the whole chunk.
Even at this price point, many large companies and wealthy individuals would still roll the dice on a UDRP. After all it was setup to be a cheaper, faster way to resolve domain disputes.
Unless WIPO changes something, this pretend “internet court” thing they have going on will only attract more “last ditch” abuse targeted at the most valuable .com names.