Financial firm files a “poster child” reverse domain name hijacking case

Panelist admonishes company for complaint over creditGPT.com domain.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has determined (pdf) that CCP3 LLC filed a case that’s a “poster child for RDNH”.

The company filed the dispute over the domain name creditGPT.com

CCP3 has a pending trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for creditGPT. The USPTO initially refused the application as descriptive, so CCP3 amended it for the supplemental register.

According to the specimen CCP3 included in its trademark application, it has a product called creditGPT, and its business uses the domain AtlasPortfolios.com. Confusingly, the privacy policy on that website refers to a company called Grain at the domain TryGrain.com. That website doesn’t contain any content.

UDRP does not usually recognize supplemental registrations as proof of a trademark. Furthermore, CCP3’s application still hasn’t registered.

Therefore, it needed to provide proof of common law rights in the term.

It failed on that front, as well as the other two prongs of the UDRP.

The Respondent, Ryan Murphy, originally launched his credit application on creditGPT.io. A few months later, he paid about $5,000 to buy creditGPT.com.

It’s clear he has rights or legitimate interests in the domain, and this is not a case of cybersquatting.

Panelist David H. Bernstein said this was a poster child for reverse domain name hijacking, citing four reasons:

1. The Complainant “obviously” lacks trademark rights.
2. CCP3 either “overlooked an obvious limitation” or attempted to mislead the panel about its trademarks. It didn’t disclose that its pending application is for the supplemental register. It also “deceptively asserted that it has an active application pending in the USPTO as of June 7, 2023, but it failed to disclose that the application it filed on June 7, 2023, was refused registration and that the Complainant abandoned that application.” Bernstein also questioned when the Complainant actually started using the term on its website.
3. The Complainant didn’t attempt to address the issue that the Respondent clearly has an active website at the domain, which would lead to rights or legitimate interests.
4. CCP3’s allegation of registration and use in bad faith “rests on bare allegations that simply parrot the elements of the Policy without offering any factual or evidentiary foundation.”

Bernstein wrote that CCP3’s counsel, Grant Attorneys at Law, should have known better.

Christian & Barton LLP represented the domain owner.