Panelist says the Complainant’s actions went beyond just reverse domain name hijacking.
A panelist has ruled that an NFT company not only committed reverse domain name hijacking but it is also guilty of “actual” domain name hijacking.
Euclid Labs, which runs the NFT site at MagicEden.io, filed a cybersquatting case against MagicEden.gg. The case was filed with Channel Islands Domain Disputes (CIDD), which operates a UDRP-like system to handle disputes for domains in the Channel Islands, including .gg.
The Complainant argued that the domain owner previously used the domain for phishing, and now “the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name now serves as a confusing dead-end for potential visitors to Complainant’s actual website. ”
Interestingly, rather than providing proof that the domain was used for Phishing, Euclid Labs merely states, “upon information and belief, Respondent redirected traffic to the Disputed Domain Name to a phishing website.”
But the weirder thing has to do with the Complainant’s statement about how the site was being used when the complaint was filed.
The domain owner pointed the domain to services at Vercel, a cloud platform for developers. At some point, its account was deactivated, but the domain still pointed there. So the Complainant created an account at Vercel for the domain and posted a message:
Hey, get in touch – we want this domain. security@magiceden[.]io – ask for Paco
The CIDD panelist was shocked that the Complainant hijacked the domain’s traffic and then didn’t inform the panel that the “confusing dead-end” was manipulated by the Complainant.
Panelist Nick Lockett said that the Complainant’s actions might be a criminal offense of The Guernsey Computer Misuse Act and other laws.
The domain owner didn’t respond, but the panelist found in the Respondent’s favor and found this was reverse domain name hijacking.
But there’s more. He also wrote that he:
(ii) finds that the Claimant was guilty of Actual Domain Name Hijacking
Cole Schotz P.C. represented Euclid Labs.
The decision was rendered on April 22. Oddly, the domain was just registered again today, perhaps after expiring.
(Hat tip to John Berryhill for bringing this case to my attention.)
John Berryhill says
An NFT outfit engaging in crime to get something they want. Wow, who would have seen that coming?