Panelist makes an easy decision that the Complainant filed its case in abuse of the UDRP.
A Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre panel has ruled (pdf) that Boost Collective Inc. tried to reverse domain name hijack BoostCollective.com.
Boost Collective Inc. is a Canadian company that helps music artists distribute their music. It uses the domain name boostcollective.ca.
Its owner really, really wants the matching .com. But that’s owned by a U.S. business that was formed before the Canadian company was founded.
Panelist Alan L. Limbury had no trouble finding in favor of the U.S. company and finding reverse domain name hijacking against Boost Collective Inc. When you read the Complainant’s arguments, you’ll understand why.
The Complainant was so misguided that I’m going to paste some of its more ridiculous arguments verbatim.
…We are currently only able to operate our site on boostcollective.ca as the Respondent is using our name and goodwill to gain traffic to her Domain Name and thus promote the
Respondent’s services. This causes major confusion for US users as they look for boostcollective.com, and end up on a different site, selling marketing and promotional services as well…
Yes, you can only operate on the .ca because there was an existing business with the .com before you started!
We have made numerous efforts to reach out to the Respondent for an amicable resolution by giving her a different domain that would NOT cause confusion (eg. boostcollective.org).
Gee, how kind of you to offer the .com owner the option to switch to the .org.
Millions of consumers, site traffic, users, and customers know Boost Collective and its likeness as ours, and with many being US-based, they assume that our TLD will be .com, causing them to land on her website.
And that’s the .com domain owner’s problem?
The Respondent is also refusing to move the Domain Name over even after multiple outreaches. We have reached out multiple times over email, LinkedIn, and phone number only to be rudely declined of any potential resolution. The Respondent is unwilling to cooperate or even talk to us. Alongside this, the Respondent has shown a blatant refusal to come to an agreement even after multiple attempts at a discourse in good faith.
If the Respondent were operating in good faith, she would make an effort to work with us to find an alternative domain name that is both identifiable to her brand and also not misleading the millions of impressions and tens of thousands of customers assuming that the Domain Name is ours. All these reasons make it evident that the Respondent is domain squatting – waiting for us to continue growing until we are forced unfairly to pay an enormous sum for the transfer of the Domain Name. Having the Domain Name transferred to us will put an end to misleading users, visitors, customers and clients, prevent our trademark from being tarnished, and prevent us from losing revenue from traffic unfairly diverted to a different business that people aren’t looking for.
Um…I just…I truly don’t know what to say.
Limbury called this a classic Plan B reverse domain name hijacking case.
The case does not list legal representatives for the parties.
Thank you to Internet Commerce Association’s UDRP digest for bringing this case to my attention.
Dmitrii says
Hello!
Here are some interesting UDRP case (examples)…
* for the simplicity of the case(s) – case(s) are filed with WIPO UDRP
* and sorry if it’s’t appropriate to post this here
Could you please provide information what do you think about case(s) ?
“World Example Organization” is non-profit organization registered as legal entity in, for example, in US in 2018,
and has WEO trademark registered “world wide”…
*(non-profit organization is its “organizational legal form”)
And uses domain weo.example for it’s website since 2018 (*domain registered in 2018)
* (Website on weo.example is about World Example Organization and there no contant on it regarding UN “World Example Organization” or IT “World Example Organization”)
In 2023
UN decides to establish UN “World Example Organization” as atonomous organization within United Nations.
*(To my mind its legal for UN to establish “some” organiztion. For example UNIDO was established as an atonomous organization within United Nations. UNGA Res.2089(XX) Establishment of UNIDO_0 $ UNGA Res.2152(XXI) Annex I to UNIDO Constitution_0)
I added “UN” in front of the name of organization, so it wont be to confusing.
In UN “World Example Organization” founding documents, for example the name is(will be) “World Example Organization” and the UN’s “World Example Organization” goals are the same as goals of “World Example Organization”
or in 2023
there will be for example, international treaty, international agreement and etc… , establishing IT “World Example Organization”
I added “IT” in front of the name of organization, so it wont be to confusing. *(IT = international treaty)
In IT “World Example Organization” founding documents, for example the name is(will be) “World Example Organization” and the IT’s “World Example Organization” goals are the same as goals of “World Example Organization”
UN “World Example Organization” or IT “World Example Organization” can “easily” get weo.int (Eligibility for a .INT domain https://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy) However UN “World Example Organization” or IT “World Example Organization” for “some” reasons desires domain weo.example “badly”
So some (example) UDRP cases regarding UN “World Example Organization”
Case 1 UN
“World Example Organization” sends request to “World Example Organization” about “purchasing” domain weo.example
However “World Example Organization” is not interested in selling that off.
And then UN “World Example Organization” files claim under UDRP to get weo.example .
Case 2
UN “World Example Organization” directly “jumps” to UDRP. UN “World Example Organization” files claim under UDRP to get weo.example .
So some (example) UDRP cases regarding IT “World Example Organization”
Case 3
IT “World Example Organization” sends request to “World Example Organization” about “purchasing” domain weo.example
However “World Example Organization” is not interested in selling that off.
And then IT “World Example Organization” files claim under UDRP to get weo.example .
Case 4
IT “World Example Organization” directly “jumps” to UDRP.
IT “World Example Organization” files claim under UDRP to get weo.example .
In which cases UN “World Example Organization” can get decison for transfer
of weo.example from “World Example Organization” to UN “World Example Organization” ?
Or in which cases UN “World Example Organization” could be found guilty of RDNH ?
And
In which cases IT “World Example Organization” can get decison for transfer
of weo.example from “World Example Organization” to IT “World Example Organization” ?
Or in which cases IT “World Example Organization” can be found guilty of RDNH ?
Kind regards, Dmitrii