Canadian company that owns Mamar.ca tries to get matching .com through UDRP.
Mamar Group LTD, a Canadian company that sells products on Amazon and at Mamar.ca, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Mamar.com.
The domain is owned by Mrs Jello, LLC, a domain investment company created by the late Igal Lichtman. It acquired the domain name in 2006.
Mamar Group was formed just last year, so it had no chance of winning a cybersquatting case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It would be impossible to show the domain was registered in bad faith to target a company that didn’t exist until 12 years later.
The company first tried to buy the domain before filing the UDRP.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist David Taylor wrote:
…in the present case, the Panel considers that it was clear from the information available to the Complainant at the time of filing, under a plain reading of the Policy and taking account of readily‑available Policy precedent, that the Complainant could not prove the Respondent’s bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the Complainant knew, or should have known, that it could not succeed in its Complaint under any reasonable interpretation of the Policy. The above, combined with the Complainant’s failed attempt to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent, leads the Panel to conclude that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at RDNH and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
Drewbert says
“constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”
Just wait one moment, while we wet the bus ticket…
Meyer says
Congratulations to Stevan Lieberman on defending Igal’s domain. I’m sure his family appreciates it.
David Taylor says
Andrew – there is an unfortunate typo (Respondent for Complainant) in the RDNH section quoted above. Not your mistake, my typo in the decision, now corrected in the final version online (and below). “The Panel considers that the Complainant knew, or should have known, that it could not succeed in its Complaint under any reasonable interpretation of the Policy.”
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2019-1210
Andrew Allemann says
Thanks, David. I’ve fixed this in the post.