Company files UDRP after failed attempts to buy domain and threaten GoDaddy.
CSP International Fashion Group S.p.A., a fashion company in Italy, has failed to get a domain name owned by GoDaddy through a UDRP.
The company operates a site at MyBoutique.it and filed a cybersquatting dispute against MyBoutique.com. GoDdddy’s NameFind subsidiary acquired the domain name when it bought Marchex’s domain portfolio.
Implausibly, the fashion company said it only discovered that the .com was registered many years after it registered the .it domain in 2011:
The Complainant says because its domain name myboutique.it had become an important asset it recently decided to register the trademark MYBOUTIQUE and the disputed domain name, and only then discovered the latter had been registered.
Panelist Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman pointed out that companies are free to trade in generic domain names:
Trading in domain names happens in a marketplace. Prices are struck between buyer and seller and it is not a function of the Policy to interfere in people’s bargains. Absent registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, such as the targeting of trademark holders, a respondent may monetise its stock of domain names by way of advertising and may set the asking prices for them.
He also summarized the case nicely:
In sum, this dispute follows an increasingly common pattern. First, the Complainant tries to buy the disputed domain name anonymously. The next step is commonly a lawyer’s letter setting out the intending purchaser’s registered trademark rights, which was not open to this Complainant. The third step is to bring a proceeding under the Policy. As the Respondent’s Declaration put it, “Evidentially [sic], finding the price too high and believing it could get it more cheaply, Complainant initiated this proceeding. As I understand it, this qualifies for reverse domain name hijacking”.
Surprisingly, Trotman did not find RDNH. He wrote that he was “not persuaded that the Complaint was insincere or malicious”.