This dead-on-arrival UDRP could have been avoided by asking the Complainant a simple question.
Catalyzer, Inc, a leadership training organization, has lost a UDRP for Catalyzer.com.
The case was dead on arrival. Catalyzer recently changed its name from LGL Leadership to Catalyzer and filed a trademark application last year. The current owner of the domain appears to have acquired the dictionary word .com in 2011. Thus, he didn’t register it in bad faith to target the Complainant.
It appears that Catalyzer, which uses the domain TeamCatalyzer.com, filed the case without counsel. It also inquired about the domain before filing the dispute.
The domain owner didn’t respond to the UDRP, but National Arbitration Forum panelist correctly denied the transfer.
This type of UDRP can easily be avoided by asking a simple question on UDRP submissions:
Does your trademark pre-date the Respondent’s registration of the domain name, or is there a good reason the domain name owner would have known of your brand prior to registering the domain name?
Has this question been required, Catalyzer would have saved itself the cost and time of filing this dispute.
The domain owner didn’t respond in this case. Had he done so, it’s likely that Catalyzer would have been hit with a reverse domain name hijacking claim.
The Panelist, Dawn Osborne, failed her duty to rule this as an RDNH.
The domain owner should not be required to respond to this blatant hijacking attempt in order to have it be ruled as an RDNH.
It is unfortunate that the UDRP process is used by well-funded companies to try to deprive legitimate owners of high-value one-word dictionary names. Receiving a complaint can be intimidating, but a response should always be filed by a domain name owner to protect his/her intellectual property rights. Failure to respond may result in a decision to transfer a domain name, which would in turn require filing a costly federal lawsuit within a limited time period to prevent the transfer.
This!
Plus putting a time limit. Allowing a start-up company to UDRP a domain name registered last century is just ridiculous.
UDRP providers should be required to evaluate applications before wasting everyone’s time.
But then panelists and providers wouldn’t make any money. Isn’t that the whole point of the process?
Allowing frivolous UDRP cases to be heard just for the sake of money??
Are you serious?
What is wrong with you?