Redactable.co owner wins dispute for Redactable.com.
A SaaS company that helps people redact documents won a UDRP that will allow it to upgrade its domain name from .co to .com.
Redactable Inc., which uses the domain name redactable.co, won the dispute against redactable.com.
James Robinson, president of document management company PaperFree Corporation, acquired the domain name last month and forwarded it to his company website. The domain was listed for sale on BrandBucket for $2,195.
Robinson argued that it was a generic term related to document redaction, so forwarding it to his company’s website made sense.
Redactable Inc. claimed in the UDRP that it didn’t buy the domain because of its “exorbitant” price during its startup phase as a company. (Note to startups: if you can acquire the .com of your desired domain for only $2,195, go for it. I would question a company’s longevity if it won’t pay this much for a domain name. Especially if I were a law firm looking to pay a subscription for a redaction tool. Note that the Respondent acquired the domain just last month, and now the Complainant had to pay much more than $2,195 to file the UDRP and hire lawyers.)
National Arbitration Forum Panelist Dennis Foster found in Redactable Inc’s favor and ordered the domain transferred.
There’s an interesting twist in this case. The Respondent said he “terminated his lease” of the domain in October and that “The Lessor claims that the disputed domain name will not be leased to any other entity, but will be offered for sale at the price of US$2,950.” The domain had a lease-to-own option at BrandBucket, but the domain was transferred to Robinson’s name upon acquisition. I’ve never seen a lease-to-own option in which the domain is transferred to the lessee’s name before making all payments, so I question the details in acquisition. But you should keep tabs on how people who buy your domains on payment plans are using them and if it could cause any problems.
Craig Beaker of Perkins Coie represented the Complainant. It appears the Respondent was self-represented.