Vodacom filed dead-on-arrival case and domain owner said it was an abuse of the policy, but…
A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panelist has correctly found in favor of the registrant of VideoPlay.com, but he forgot something: to find the Complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Vodafone Group PLC filed the dispute against the owner of the domain who registered it in 2001. The earliest Vodafone can show any use of the term Video Play is 2014, according to the decision.
The Complainants tried to make a bad faith argument based on a single link on the site in 2003 pointing to what it says was an illegal download site. That’s a stretch…especially since the Complainant’s Video Play service didn’t exist until a decade later!
The domain registrant alleged that the Complainant “is misusing the UDRP system in an attempt to misappropriate the disputed domain name.”
For some reason, panelist Frederick Abbott did not formally decide on the issue of reverse domain name hijacking despite finding that the case was a bad one:
The Panel understands that Complainant thinks it would be a good idea to own the disputed domain name since it presumably has a commercial value to Complainant. But the Policy is not designed to accord rights to parties that think they have better uses for domain names than existing domain name registrants. Before an enterprise launches a commercial venture, it would be wise to investigate whether a domain name is available, or how much it might cost to purchase from a prior registrant.
John says
What galls me is these rich companies would prefer to pay a lawyer £100K thank pay $50K for “A” domain. Even then they are not guaranteed to get the domain in Court. I don’t speak of any particular domain.
Russian Troll says
Nothing surprising here – typical corporate mentality. Its like when you’re doing the work of three people, constant overtime, extremely tired, but they won’t give you a promotion, a raise or more staff (while they should be giving all three) no matter how many times you ask. Then you just can’t do that anymore and quit, and pretty soon there is a whole new department where everyone’s salary is higher than yours was. They won’t succumb to an individual, if you were another corporation, would be a whole different story, but individuals should be shown their place all the time.
Frank says
The Vodafone company and its lawyers are a bunch of crooks and thieves.
Do not buy any Vodafone products.
Do not buy from cheaters and criminals.
Hans says
so panelist Frederick Abbott has no balls to decide RDNH for a big corporate bully ? What a joke this guy is…
C.S. Watch says
If, then. If registered before the mark, no targeting could be possible, de facto reverse domain name hijacking. It is the clear mandate of the UDRP to deliver RDNH absent the likelihood one could have prevailed.
This mandate to find RDNH is in place to warn and protect future parties, like the overreaching complainant in IMI.COM, who will be out $580K+, in addition to their own legal fees. That ain’t hay, buddy.
And the mandate to find RDNH is in place to protect quailing panelists, as well. As UDRP history has proved, to a shocking extent, panelists have a profit motivation and a ‘fear of alienating clients’ motivation which must be taken out of the equation.
‘We have no choice, sahib!’
John Smith says
GOD BLESS WIPO
al says
pure reverse domain name hijacking…..omg….