Panelist calls web designer’s dispute “frivolous” and an abuse of the policy.
A FORUM panelist has ruled that an Illinois web design company tried to reverse hijack a domain name.
Cybernautic, Inc., which uses the domain cybernauticdesign.com, filed a cybersquatting complaint against the domain cybernautics.com.
The web design company registered a federal trademark for Cybernautic in 2022, citing a first use date in 2006. In its complaint, however, it argued that it actually had rights dating to at least 2000. The domain was registered in 2001.
Panelist David H. Bernstein noted that Cybernautic’s evidence of the earlier date was extremely limited, and it’s unlikely the domain registrant, Domain Vault, would have known about the company.
To get around the date issue, Cybernautic argued that other companies had trademarks that predated the domain registration. It noted that the Respondent registered the domain after one of those companies let the domain expire.
However, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) cases require the Respondent to have targeted the Complainant, not a third party.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, Bernstein wrote:
Although Complainant now claims trademark rights dating back to the 1990s, which conveniently for Complainant is shortly before Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, that contention is questionable given the limited nature of the trade name reference in that local Illinois newspaper and Complainant’s representation to the USPTO that it first used its trademark in 2006.
Regardless, even if the Panel credits that earlier claim of first use, any reasonable investigation of the facts would have shown that Respondent could not possibly have had knowledge of Complainant or its alleged trademark rights at the time Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2001. That finding is reinforced by Complainant’s attempt to argue that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith as to other, third-party trademark owners, rather than as to Complainant itself. That argument is frivolous, entirely unwarranted under the UDRP, and further evidence of Complainant’s bad faith in bringing this challenge (a conclusion further reinforced by the fact that Complainant brought this challenge two decades after the Disputed Domain Name was registered, with no explanation for its lengthy delay). Neurocog Pty Ltd v. Domain Administrator, CentralNic Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2024-1076
Leave a Comment