Long-shot UDRP against a valuable domain goes nowhere.
A UDRP panel has found that Financial Information Network, Inc. tried to reverse hijack the valuable domain name fin.com.
The company uses the domain name fingps.com. While the domain previously resolved to a site about financial services, when checked today, it only showed a logo with no other content.
Winning a cybersquatting case against such a generic and valuable domain name would be difficult in any case, and the three-person panel found that the Complainant missed the bar by a long shot.
The panel found that the Complainant failed to win any of the three prongs required to win a UDRP.
Notably, on the issue of whether the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, the panel noted that all three of Financial Information Network’s trademarks are figurative, not just the word fin. Given the generic nature of the term, the panel concluded “that it is not appropriate to make a text-to-text comparison between Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name.”
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:
This Panel makes a finding of RDNH against Complainant. Complainant, especially since it is legally represented, should have been aware that this Complaint could not have reasonably succeeded. Complainant largely relies on bare assertions without supporting evidence. In particular, Complainant should have been well aware of the descriptive nature of the “FIN” term and that the evidential threshold is higher for all three elements, yet Complainant has produced scant evidence.
Italia IP, Inc. represented the Complainant, and Farella Braun + Martel LLP represented the domain name owner.
The attorney that filed this, James A. Italia of Italia IP, Inc, should maybe go back to school. Maybe he was just performing for his client who thought they were in the right.
What a terrible case. Clear cut example of what not to do when you want a domain name.