Company mistakenly included internal communications about bad faith in its submission.
Dialoga Servicios Interactivos, S.A. of Spain has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Dialoga.com.
The company filed a UDRP against the domain name in 2017 and lost. That domain registrant let the domain expire and a domain investor bought it. Dialoga tried to buy the domain from the domain investor and ultimately filed another UDRP.
Two things were problematic for the Complainant. First, dialoga is a dictionary word in at least three major languages.
Second, the Complainant appears to have accidentally included internal communications about its intent in inquiring about buying the domain name. The communications suggest that it had an ulterior motive in its purchase inquiry:
In an internal communication in Spanish whose contents appear to have been inadvertently reproduced by the Complainant in the evidence submitted with the Complaint, and which has been translated by the Respondent, the Complainant proposes to call the Respondent and indicate that it is only interested in a purchase of the disputed domain name and would offer EUR 1,500. The Complainant notes that “the idea is to get them to imply that they will then do something else with it… something we can hold on to in order to prove bad faith on his part…”
LetsLaw represented the Complainant. Muscovitch Law P.C. represented the Respondent.