An app builder tried to reverse hijack com.app

World Intellectual Property Organization panelist finds RDNH in case involving domain acquired during .app early access phase.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist had determined (pdf) that Norman Ortiz, CEO of app-building platform iGenApps, tried reverse domain name hijacking the domain com.app.

iGenApps offers third level domains under several domains, including under com-in.app and the internationalized domain name cõm.app.

Tong Zekun acquired the domain name in May 2018 during the early access phase of .app’s launch.

Ortiz said he’d tried to get the domain during the .app sunrise, but was denied because his trademark application for com.app was still pending.

In fact, he filed his trademark application on an intent-to-use basis and didn’t file a statement of use until March 2019. Oddly, the initial specimen he filed didn’t include com.app anywhere on it, so it was initially refused.

Panelist Matthew Kennedy found that Ortiz didn’t show the domain was registered and used in bad faith. He further found that this was a case of reverse domain name hijacking. Among Kennedy’s reasons were that Ortiz:

• didn’t disclose that he previously tried to buy the domain for $5,000
• was aware that he had no trademark rights at the time when the disputed domain name was registered, that he did not begin using the mark in commerce until later, that the Respondent is not deemed to have constructive notice of his trademark application, and that there is no evidence of targeting
• was told about the flaws of his case before filing

Kennedy concluded with:

According to a statement of use filed with the USPTO citing to “Domain registry operator services”, the Complainant invited pre-registration online for “.com.app” subdomains from as early as March 6, 2019, even though he did not control the disputed domain name. Clearly, the Complainant feels that he would make better use of the disputed domain name than the Respondent is making, but that is no basis for a UDRP complaint.

Both parties were self-represented.