Just when you think you’ve seen them all…
I’ve seen a lot of spurious arguments in UDRP cases, and one from a case published this week lands in my top 5.
McCoy & Partners B.V., an SAP consulting firm, filed a UDRP against McCoy.com. The company uses mccoy-partners.com and wanted to upgrade its domain.
Without even reading the case details, you can tell this would be a difficult case to win. McCoy is a common surname, so there would have to be some sort of exceptional direct targeting involved to win the UDRP.
It seems that the Complainant filed the case because it couldn’t get a response when it inquired about the domain. So it argued that this failure to respond to its overtures was some sort of violation of the domain registration agreement! Here’s how this argument was summarized in the case decision:
The Respondent ignores all contact attempts. The failure of the Respondent to respond to communications violates the Respondent’s obligation in its domain name registration agreement to regularly monitor emails. Under the registration agreement, a domain owner is liable to lose its domain name if it does not respond to emails relating thereto.
The lack of response from the Respondent is analogous to the failure of a respondent to respond to a UDRP complaint and is indicative a lack of legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent.
Wow.
The domain owner didn’t respond to the dispute but still (unsurprisingly) won. Panelist Adam Taylor noted that the domain was registered in 2001, well before the Complainant existed. Taylor also pointed out that, even if the domain owner acquired the domain later, the fact that it’s a popular surname would have made this case difficult to win.
AKD N.V. represented the Complainant.
John Berryhill says
“I had to steal it. They wouldn’t sell it to me.”
Kate says
Interestingly:
“In these circumstances, it does not assist the Complainant that the Respondent has failed to respond to communications (whether or not a breach of the registration agreement) or to provide evidence of demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for an active website, or even that there have been at least 15 negative UDRP decision against the Respondent.”
And yet they thought that by retaining a team of lawyers they would prevail somehow.
They should now demand a refund for this botched attempt at stealing a domain name.
Jennifer Remington says
You are right, but their assumption is driven by the facts that Icann has historically favored the actions of the plantiffs far to unfairly in past cases statistically speaking. 90% plus chance of winning any domain for just filing an UDRP fraudulent or not will do this to vultures and their greedy lawyers.
Andrew Allemann says
Frankly, 90% of cases should be won. They are slam dunk cases.
steve brady says
A common domain name is like a square mile of real estate in a well populated area. If you buy it and set up a restricted perimeter around it, take down the mailbox, but still pay the power bill, the neighbors and the county are going to think it’s a bigamist compound.
The Real McCoy is behaving like a hermit.
Vivek Goyal says
Shows what kind of advice lawyers are giving clients wrt to domain names.
Jennifer Remington says
rare to win a UDRP, even rarer to win a UDRP without responding! Congratulations to someone. Scary enviroment we domainers live in lately.
Todd Ryan says
It’s not so rare to win a UDRP if you aren’t cybersquatting even if the domain investor doesn’t respond to the complaint. Stop in Domain Name Law Room on Tuesdays at 3pm PST/6pm EST on Clubhouse. We have experienced domain name lawyers and a UDRP panelist sharing every week. I will have several cases where the domain investor did not respond to the complaint and still won (primarily because of clear-thinking panelists).
Congrats on 17 yrs Andrew. I’ve been here from the start and can’t say enough how much I value the work you’ve done for all of us domain investors/business people and what you’ve contributed/shared throughout the years. Ty.