Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Reverse domain name hijacking (even with no response)

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Panelist finds Mister Auto SAS filed complaint in abuse of policy despite domain name owner not responding.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found Mister Auto SAS in France guilty of reverse domain name hijacking for the domain name MisterAuto.com.

The decision by panelist John Swinson comes despite the domain name owner not responding in the case. Yet it was a fairly easy decision; the domain was registered well before the Complainant existed and the Complainant made no argument to address this.

It’s not surprising that Mister Auto wanted MisterAuto.com. It uses the hyphenated domain name Mister-Auto.com to sell auto parts. It sent a cease & desist letter to the domain name owner and never heard back.

Swinson summed up Mister Auto SAS’ action in filing the UDRP:

The Panel considers the Complainant launched the proceedings out of desperation as its prior attempt to contact the Respondent went unanswered (and the webpage did not resolve – revealing no clues as to the Respondent’s possible motives) but without a reasonable chance of success and as such in the circumstances constitutes an abuse of the Administrative Proceeding.

Mister Auto was represented by Cairn Legal in Belgium.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Crypto World Journal tries to reverse domain name hijack CWJ.com

by — Policy & Law 6 Comments

Company goes after valuable domain name that was registered before it existed.

Crypto World Journal Inc, which operates a news site about cryptocurrency and blockchain, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to get the domain name CWJ.com.

The domain name was purchased by a Chinese domain name investor in 2016. Crypto World Journal wasn’t founded until after that. In the complaint, it’s clear that the Complainant thinks the owner had the domain name since its original registration date in 1999.

Nonetheless, it pursued the case by filing a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization. It made the misguided assertion that: Click here to continue reading…

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Law firm “careless” in filing cybersquatting dispute against domain CCK.com

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Law form tried to get three letter .com domain name through UDRP.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has determined that the law firm that filed a UDRP for CCK.com was “careless”, but stopped short of finding it a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick LTD, which uses the domain names cck-law.com and cck.law, filed the case and was represented by Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP.

WIPO Panelist Matthew Kennedy found that the complainant did not show the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. He did not consider the other two elements of UDRP.

It appears the domain was purchased earlier this year by a Chinese domain name investor.

The complaint, as summarized by Kennedy, argues: Click here to continue reading…

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Former SNN.com owner goes to court to recover domain name

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Original registrant files lawsuit after failing to recover domain name through UDRP.

The former owner of SNN.com, who says his domain name was stolen, has filed a lawsuit (pdf) in Virginia to try to recover the domain name.

The suit was filed by Delbert Terrill, who registered the domain name in 1995, along with domain name registrar Brandon Gray Internet Services, Inc dba NameJuice.com.

(If that registrar name looks familiar, it’s because it was suspended by ICANN for the “Domain Registry of America” domain slamming issue.)

The lawsuit alleges that someone used a fake passport & business license to steal the domain name and transfer it to a different registrar.

Terrill tried to recover the domain name through UDRP earlier this year. It failed after not providing evidence of common law rights in the term “SNN”.

Also, unusual in cases of alleged domain theft, the current registrant of the domain responded in the dispute. The registrant claimed it acquired the domain legitimately.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email

Fertilizer company tries reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 13 Comments

Company intentionally provided incomplete material evidence, panel determines.

Ferm-O-Feed B.V., a fertilizer company based in the Netherlands, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Fertiplus.com.

The World Intellectual Property Organization panel determined that Ferm-O-Feed “provided intentionally incomplete material evidence.”

The case follows a familiar pattern found in UDRP filings:

A company first tries to buy a domain name by reaching out to the owner (either via email or an online form). Once it receives a quote for the domain name, it then provides the quote to the panel and suggests that the domain owner reached out to it to try to sell the domain rather than just responding to an inbound request.

This matters because the Complainant is using the communications to suggest that the domain owner targeted its trademark and company with the domain registrations.

The panel provides a whole host of reasons that the domain wasn’t registered and used in bad faith, and found that the fertilizer company filed the case in abuse of the policy by not providing a complete picture of the communication. This, despite a warning by the domain owner’s counsel Zak Muscovitch.

Ferm-O-Feed was represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V. [Update: a DNW reader pointed out that I’ve written about several RDNH cases in which Novagraaf was involved.]

Share
Tweet
Share
Email