Ad agency files “egregious” cybersquatting claim.
Media Bridge Inc., which does business as Media Bridge Advertising, has been found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking to get the domain MediaBridge.com.
The company filed the complaint against Mediabridge Infosystems Inc., which registered the domain name in 1994. The UDRP decision states that the Complainant claims rights dating to 2010.
It’s quite apparent that the domain name owner has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that it couldn’t have registered it in bad faith in 1994 to target an as-yet-non-existent advertising agency.
The Respondent didn’t specifically ask for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, but panelist Dennis Foster said that “given the egregious nature of this filing,” it should be addressed.
In this case, the Panel believes that it should have been obvious to Complainant that the first (and dominant) term of Respondent’s corporate name, “Mediabridge Infosystems, Inc.,” mirrored the disputed domain name, mediabridege.com (sic), and that the name had been registered by Respondent some sixteen yeas before Complainant was even created. Ergo, Complainant could never have hoped to prevail with respect to the last two elements required under the Policy, because Respondent most likely would have been commonly known as the disputed domain name to a relevant public and there was absolutely no basis to claim that the name was registered in bad faith…
…As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant in initiating this proceeding has attempted reverse domain name hijacking.
Media Bridge, Inc. was represented by Alexander J. Farrell. The decision does not indicate that the Respondent was represented by counsel.