Cybersquatting case results in reverse domain name hijacking finding.
A German company called Solar Hero GmbH has been found to have tried to reverse hijack the domain hive-pt .com.
The company has a European trademark for tradinghive, which covers financial and related services.
A Portuguese company uses hive-pt .com. It offers a competitive trading platform where people earn the right to manage investment money.
If anything, it appears that Solar Hero might have a trademark claim against the domain registrant. However, it fell short of showing cybersquatting under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
As World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Andrew D. S. Lothian wrote:
The Panel finds that the Complaint in this case should never have been made in the form in which it was filed. The Complainant, represented by counsel, makes repeated key assertions regarding the alleged wellknown status and globally present nature of its trademark, of which it asserts the Respondent must have been “well aware”, without providing a scintilla of supporting evidence beyond the existence of the mark itself. Indeed, the Complaint does not even include details of the Complainant’s own business activities (with the exception of a brief reference to the Complainant’s websites in the annexed cease and desist letter) and does not set out when the Complainant’s business commenced or the extent of its trading, relying exclusively upon the existence of the Complainant’s registered trademark. The Complainant placed nothing before the Panel from which any reasonable inference could be drawn that the Respondent had any prior knowledge of and was targeting the Complainant or its mark by way of the disputed domain name, and the Complainant’s counsel would or ought to have been aware of this.
He found that the case was filed in abuse of the policy and was reverse domain name hijacking.
Boehmert & Boehmert represented the Complainant.
Incidentally, it appears that Bumble Holding Limited, the company behind the Bumble dating app, has filed to potentially oppose the Complainant’s trademark in the United States.
Leave a Comment