A surprising factor helped the domain registrant, and the panel rightfully decided this case was too close to call to order the domain transferred.
OneTab Ltd, which offers a browser plugin for organizing tabs on Google Chrome, has lost a cybersquatting complaint in an interesting case that tested the bounds of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
The company created the OneTab browser extension around 2013 and has offered it at one-tab.com. The plugin currently has 3.5 million active weekly users.
OneTab.com expired last year, and Ankit Oberoi acquired the domain for $4,300 in a GoDaddy auction.
Both OneTab Ltd and Oberoi made some good points in their respective cases.
If you Google ‘OneTab,’ nearly all of the results are for the browser extension. A few others are thrown in if you search with a space ‘One Tab’.
However, the Respondent pointed out alternative uses, including in the medical space, where he has registered many domain names.
One of the most interesting factors is one that looked bad for Oberoi but ultimately might have shown he bought the domain without being familiar with OneTab Ltd. He originally priced the domain at $25,000 but then increased it to $50,000 when he received an inquiry.
While the panel noted this was a questionable practice, it also suggested that perhaps he raised the price because he did research on the name at this time and discovered the OneTab Ltd’s success:
Paradoxically, the fact that the Respondent doubled his asking price for the disputed domain name upon learning of an enquiry from an interested buyer, unprincipled as it may have been, may point away from the Respondent having targeted the Complainant at the time of initial acquisition of the disputed domain name. As discussed above, it is quite conceivable if not likely that the Respondent doubled his asking price after conducting research into the identity of the potential buyer. After he had established that the potential buyer could well be the Complainant (given that it is the most prominent user of the mark) it is very plausible that he doubled his asking price upon learning that the Complainant was successful and of means. If that is the case, it points away from him having targeted the Complainant earlier, at the time of acquisition of the disputed domain name, bearing in mind the conjunctive nature of the bad faith element. If he had targeted the Complainant from that early point, his asking price would probably have been the higher one to begin with and there would not have been any need to increase it later.
Ultimately, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel recognized the limits of UDRP. It ruled that the merits of this case were too finely balanced based on the limited record before it.
On the record before it, the cumulative weightings of the factors for either Party are so close that the Panel cannot say with confidence that either outweighs the other. The Panel’s view is that it would require the evidentiary tools available to a court having greater probative capacity such as discovery, cross examination, subpoenas, criminal sanctions for perjury etc., to decide which of the Parties’ positions is the more likely.
Given that the burden of proof is on the Complainant, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been sufficiently established. However, this should not be understood as an approval of the Respondent’s actions, but rather a consequence of the Panel’s view, on the record before it, that this case is better suited to court adjudication.
UDRP was designed to handle clear-cut cases of cybersquatting. Panels must recognize this limitation and, when they have serious doubts, defer to a more proper venue.
Adlex Solicitors represented OneTab Ltd. Cylaw Solutions represented the domain owner. Jeremy Speres, Reyes Campello Estebaranz, and Gerald Levine decided the case for WIPO.
Very interesting.