Company filed a cybersquatting complaint against a childcare company in New York.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found (pdf) that Seed of Life Center for Early Learning and Preschool, Inc. tried to reverse hijack the domain name SeedsOfLifeChildcare.com.
According to its website at SeedOfLifeLLC.com, the Complainant operates four childcare facilities in the Seattle area. It claimed to have started operating in 2017.
The domain name at issue is registered by Seeds of Life Child Care LLC, a childcare provider that operates a single location in Brooklyn, New York.
Just with these facts, it was clear the Seattle company would lose this case. It was unable to convince the panelist that the domain owner lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain and registered the domain in bad faith.
The Complainant was trying to shoehorn a trademark dispute into a cybersquatting complaint. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is designed to handle clearcut cases of cybersquatting, not trademark disputes that are best left to the courts.
One of the reasons is that UDRP is a blunt-force instrument. The panel can only decide to transfer the domain or not transfer the domain. There’s no option for settlement or giving one party time to transition domains. Ordering the transfer of a domain from an operating business could be detrimental to that business.
Panelist W. Scott Blackmer found it a bit humorous that the Complainant argued that there could be competition between childcare businesses so far apart:
Similarly, while it is not clear it the Respondent used a privacy service or it was merely an administrative measure of the Registrar, in either event, the Respondent was not hiding, as the Respondent’s website advertises the Respondent’s business and furnishes the full contact information that the Complainant was able to use to send a cease-and-desist letter. The Respondent chose not to reply to that letter. Many others would similarly choose not to reply to a letter that claimed that a childcare facility in Brooklyn, New York offered “overlapping” services in “direct competition” with childcare services in Seattle, Washington, 2851 miles (4588 kilometers) distant. That would be rather a long drive for a parent to drop off a child every morning.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, Blackmer wrote:
In this case, the Complainant is represented by counsel and yet failed adequately to address the obvious issues under the second and third elements. The disputed domain name was already in use for an established business under a corresponding name. Moreover, the nature of these small service businesses is highly localized, and the Complainant was clearly overreaching in claiming that the Respondent in Brooklyn, New York is a “direct competitor” of the Complainant in Seattle, Washington and must have been targeting the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant retained a third-party service to investigate whether the Respondent had trademark rights or a company with a corresponding name but apparently failed to take the simple step of looking at the company registrations database in New York State, where the Respondent’s business is located, as is evident on the Respondent’s website. On these facts, even in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds it appropriate to make a finding of attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
K&L Gates, LLP represented the Complainant. The domain owner filed only an informal response to the dispute.
Leave a Comment