Company goes after valuable domain name that was registered before it existed.
Crypto World Journal Inc, which operates a news site about cryptocurrency and blockchain, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to get the domain name CWJ.com.
The domain name was purchased by a Chinese domain name investor in 2016. Crypto World Journal wasn’t founded until after that. In the complaint, it’s clear that the Complainant thinks the owner had the domain name since its original registration date in 1999.
Nonetheless, it pursued the case by filing a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization. It made the misguided assertion that:
The very nature of Respondent’s registration evidences bad faith. Respondent has owned the Domain Name since 1999 and has never once had a functional page running. This leads to the conclusion that the Respondent registered the name to sell it one day to a company like that of the Complainant who has a real and legitimate use for the name, or just to prevent the owner of a trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.
That’s not how this works. Buying a domain name with the hopes that someday someone will want to buy it is not cybersquatting.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Sebastian M.W. Hughes was particularly miffed that the Complaint “made the positive (and false) averment, in Section IV. of the Complaint (“Language of Proceedings”), that “There are no communications between the Complainant and the Respondent.”
The Complainant had emailed the owner previously. After the UDRP was filed, Crypto World Journal’s attorney wrote to the domain owner:
Hello Mr Lin:
I hope this email finds you well. I represent Cryto [sic] World Journal, the complainant in the WIPO dispute over the WWW.CWJ.COM domain name. I know that my client tried to reach out to you previously, but we did not have your name or email address, only the information provided by the registrar. Would you be willing to settle this outside of WIPO? I know my client is amenable to a speedy solution and we would appreciate if you were willing to come to a reasonable understanding. Please advise.
Hughes summarizes:
In light of the above, the Panel agrees with the Respondent that the Complainant has filed the Complaint after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from the Respondent, and where the legally represented Complainant filed the Complaint without having any plausible basis for establishing, in particular, bad faith registration and use.
The Chinese domain name investor was represented by Zak Muscovitch. Crypto World Journal was represented by Abecassis Foad, P.A..
Mike says
Andrew, you say ,quote “…That’s not how this works. Buying a domain name with the hopes that someday someone will want to buy it is not cybersquatting….” End Quote
BUT that is what is averred time and time again by complainants. Apparently anyone who owns more than 1 domain that someone else wants makes you a cybersquatter and a target.
Andrew Allemann says
That is right. It’s one reason I think we can cut down on RDNH cases by having an affirmation/check box be part about this be part of the UDRP filing process. In many cases it’s just ignorance on the part of the Complainants.
Of course, adding this would cut down on the number of cases groups like WIPO and NAF get, which reduces their revenue and PR about the rising number of cybersquatting claims.
Nat Cohen says
Congrats to Zak and William Lin on the win and the deserved finding of RDNH.
The complainant firm, Abecassis Foad, achieved a rare distinction in this dispute. Often panels will give one or two reasons for finding RDNH, as tracked at RDNH.com. But Abecassis Foad’s complaint was so egregious that the panel highlighted six different reasons for why the complaint was abusive and a finding of RDNH deserved:
domain first
ignored precedent
plan “B”
misrepresentation
violation of Policy’s certification
bad faith – no evidence
John says
As the RDNH turns…
Logan says
“Apparently anyone who owns more than 1 domain that someone else wants makes you a cybersquatter and a target.”
I think you mean any one human who owns more than 1 domain. I don’t think we’ve heard anyone emotively accuse Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, and many other large corporations of cybersquatting and each of them are ‘just sitting’ on thousands upon thousands of domain names that are ‘going unused’.
Mark Thorpe says
Just pay up Crypto World Journal, like all the other crypto-related businesses did for their domain names.
Just another reason why domains are better than crypto.