Domain registrar loses UDRP.
[Update June 28: IVX tweeted that it plans to sue.] A domain name registration and brand protection company has tried its hand at filing a UDRP for its own name — and lost.
Dutch company Besloten Vennootschap IVX Networks Europe B.V, which owns IVX.eu, filed the case to upgrade its domain name to IVX.com.
The ten year old company specializes in international domain name registration and brand protection. The owner of the domain claimed he acquired it in 2005 for a business venture. He provided some evidence of the original planned use. But it’s also clear that the owner wasn’t specifically targeting IVX when he registered the domain name. The three person panel determined the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith.
According to the panel write up, IVX offered $13,000 for the domain name but the owner wanted $15,000.
Something tells me the price just went up.
Joey Starkey says
No reverse domain hijacking? Seems like that is the case here.
Acro says
Offering $13k vs. $15k and opting to pay instead for a UDRP? Looks like they didn’t want to go dutch 😀
Josh says
They should have been estatic he only wanted $15k, greedy morons, obviously do not know when they had it good.
FarmerJohn says
What Josh said.
Exactly.
John Berryhill says
15K is a bargain for a three letter. Filing a UDRP in these circumstances only increases the price. I’ve seen situations where the parties were really only pocket change apart in negotiations and where, after a UDRP, the prospective buyer had to cough up an additional 20K simply because of the irritation factor.
Jim Davies says
As John said, after a UDRP the price is likely to be a lot higher. Anyone who does UDRPs knows this, so they should have realised that was a serious risk. I think they showed very poor judgement in bringing the dispute. I hope they give their clients better advice than they followed themselves!
Bill Sweetman says
@ Jim Davies
Jim, you wrote “Anyone who does UDRPs knows [after a UDRP the price is likely to be a lot higher]…”
One would think that would be the case, after all it is logical assumption, but after the hundreds of Cease & Desist letters and UDRPs that have come across my desk, I would say you are giving some of these lawyers way too much credit.
A lot of the complaints I see are from lawyers who don’t even know how to do a WHOIS search, don’t understand how search engines work, and can’t figure out the difference between a Registrant and a Registrar. You would not believe the crap I see.
I think that many of these lost lambs and their clients actually believe they will win. They haven’t even thought about the fact they might lose! It truly is the blind leading the blind. And such a waste of time and money.
UDRP reform cannot come soon enough, IMHO.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Bill Sweetman –
You mean like the lawyer at a firm that has filed 400+ UDRPs suggesting that one of your domains was originally registered by Melbourne IT, “a company that is widely known for its cybersquatting activities”?
https://domainnamewire.com/2011/06/13/tucows-wins-another-udrp-what-was-greenberg-traurig-thinking/
Philip Corwin says
Explain the logic of being $2k apart on a domain and opting for a UDRP when the average cost of filing one and taking it to decision is $4k. Can that be right? And if it is, what’s up with that??
Thomas says
I applaud the panel for the decision. Lucky that they got away with reverse hijacking. They now plan to file a suit in European courts. :)…. Funny people.
http://twitter.com/ivxeu
Andrew Allemann says
Nice find, Thomas
https://domainnamewire.com/2011/06/28/domain-brand-mangement-company-says-it-will-sue-over-ivx-com/
IVX says
Guys,
i think it’s time we as IVX should give our comment on this all..
what the owner of ivx.com clearly is missing out in this article is that in 2007 we agreed upon a price for 5500 USD. There was an official agreement and than suddenly they stated: sorry, price now is 11.000 USD, because another big company wanted to buy it..
the stated in the UDRP that they were planning to make some own website with it:
– what they also didn’t stated was that in later e-mails they stated (2011): well if you don’t want to buy the domain we are planning to contact other companies using “IVX” and sell it to them..
Above point made us decide to file UDRP because we were not amused by the fact that we have an EUROPEAN TRADEMARK and that they were going/ planning to sell the domain to a company that uses the same name as us. Because also a similar company in Brazil is using our brandname for same services..
Also our emails were done in private, not straight from IVX.
And we DID NOT agree into 13.000 USD.
We were just seeking how far they wanted to go with their asking price, because our last negotion e-mail was from 2009.
So we do know what we are doing when it comes to brand name management.
We are currently in discussion what the best next step is to take, and also did the owner a nice bid to acquire the name.
regards,
Bjorn
CEO – IVX
IVX says
Also: it’s not a reverse domain hijacking case at all. we are willing to pay for the domain.
IVX.com says
I am the owner of IVX.com I am not sure why WIPO says the difference was $2000, I clearly showed them the emails.
You guys wont believe the difference was not $2000 but $675!!
IVX.eu offered $13,650 and then we countered with $14,325 which is actually a split of $13650 and $15000, the initial asking price.
I can show the proof of all this!!
Other interesting thing is they asked for 10 days time to arrange the money ($14,325). Then again asked for another week and later filed a UDRP to our surprise.
Of course now I know that it was a fake offer and I was wasting my time.
Funny thing is that he still wants to fight in a European court to get the domain???
Also, unlike he claimed, there was no agreement for $5500 in 2007.
If he has the agreement, I would request him to share it here so others know if he is telling the truth.