Panel admonishes GoSecure for filing cybersquatting dispute.
GoSecure Inc. has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name GoSecure.com. The company appears to use the .net version of the name.
The company filed a cybersquatting dispute after trying to buy the domain and despite the domain owner registering the domain 16 years before getting a trademark. The three-person National Arbitration Forum panel also found that the Complainant failed to show that the domain owner lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain.
GoSecure argued that the domain owner used the domain for phishing. The domain owner denied this, and the panel noted that the Complainant failed to provide evidence of this.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel considered this a “Plan B” case in which a company files a UDRP after failing to acquire a domain name:
The Panel notes that Respondent does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. It also notes that the disputed domain name registration predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the GOSECURE mark for almost 16 years. Nevertheless, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in violation of its trademark rights. It also accuses Respondent of using its email operation for phishing, but the evidence does not support this contention.
Complainant initiated these proceedings after failing to purchase the domain name in the marketplace. Its trademark came into being long after the disputed domain name was registered, and Complainant had made prior unsolicited offers to purchase the domain name.
The panel also wrote, “Complainant is represented by counsel with experience in the UDRP process, who likely advised Complainant that its position was unsupportable.”
Andrew Skale of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. represented the Complainant. Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions represented the domain owner.