Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Lack of disclosure leads to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Mexican resort operator failed to disclose business relationship with domain owner.

Trouble in Paradise.

The operators of two Mexican resorts–Golden Parnassus Paradise of the Gods and Great Parnassus Paradise of the Gods–have been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) in a recent cybersquatting complaint.

The resorts filed UDRPs against the domains GoldenParnassusCancun.com and GreatParnassusCancun.com. The domains are owned by a company in Florida that wholesales vacation packages to travel agencies.

The UDRP filings missed several critical details and failed to disclose a 10+ year relationship between the complainants and the domain owner. It turns out that the Florida company has a long-running business deal to wholesale vacation packages to the resorts. It has even received the resort owner’s approval for changes to websites on the domains at issue.

Although the domain owner didn’t ask for a finding of RDNH, the panel considered it anyway and determined that the filing was made in bad faith:

After reviewing all the evidence, the Panel has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has failed to disclose a number of material facts, including the existence of the long standing business relationship between the parties and the specific facts recited in this decision at paragraph 6.B, which were critical to the Panel’s finding that Respondent holds legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain names, and which were obviously known to the Complainants before they began these proceedings. In these circumstances, the filing of the Complaint represents an abuse of process which the Panel finds entirely unacceptable. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

Share
Share
+1
Email

Company files UDRP against a relative, but it’s RDNH

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

What’s Italian for domain hijacking?

Colussi S.p.A. of Milan, Italy has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) over the domain name Colussi.com.

The domain name is owned by Andrea Colussi, a cousin of the current Chairman and a shareholder of Colussi S.p.A., and nephew of Angelo Colussi, the founder of Colussi S.p.A.

This was a dead-on-arrival case. How could you show that someone whose last name is Colussi doesn’t have a legitimate interest in the domain name Colussi.com?

The complaint suggests that Andrea Colussi should have transferred rights in the Colussi name along with a business sale that took place in 1999. The World Intellectual Property Organization panelist reviewed the documentation around that agreement but probably didn’t need to. It seems to be outside the scope of a UDRP.

The panelist listed five reasons for finding RDNH. The first one was reason enough:

…the Complainant was clearly aware of the Respondent’s identity and of his family name, Colussi, which is identical to the disputed domain name, and thus the Complainant had a clear knowledge of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Share6
Share5
+1
Email
Shares 29

Ad firm N2COM guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Company tried to get BabyBoom.com through cybersquatting claim after failing to buy it.

Would you believe the domain name BabyBoom.com is a case of cybersquatting?

Neither would just about anyone else, but that’s what advertising firm N2COM tried to argue in a UDRP it filed this summer.

The firm has a brand called BabyBoom that targets…wait for it…baby and parenting stuff.

Back in 2007 it sent a cease & desist letter to domain investor Xedoc, which acquired the domain in 2003. Xedoc rebutted the letter and didn’t hear back again until 2012 when N2COM tried to buy the domain. N2COM’s biggest offer came in 2015…just $5,000.

Fast forward to 2017 when it filed a cybersquatting complaint. It’s a typical “Plan B” UDRP. Or should I say Plan C?

Unsurprisingly, the three person World Intellectual Property Organization panel found N2COM to have filed the case in abuse of the policy:

The Complainant in this case is legally represented and, in the view of the Panel, should have been aware in the circumstances set out above that this Complaint was misconceived. The Panel also notes that in February 2007 the Respondent’s representatives sent a detailed letter of rebuttal to the Complainant’s “cease and desist” letter, which stated at the end: “If we do not hear from you within the next 10 days we will consider this matter closed.” The Panel accepts the Respondent’s evidence that it did not hear from the Complainant again until the Complainant sought to purchase of the disputed domain name in 2012 and that the Complainant did not make further allegations of infringement at that time. This proceeding having been commenced a few months after those negotiations were unsuccessfully concluded, the Panel finds on balance that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative process.

The complainant was represented by Laetitia Domb. Xedoc was represented by Paul Keating.

Share4
Share6
+1
Email
Shares 28

Owner of eGrandstand.com files UDRP against Grandstand.com

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Company wants to drop the ‘e’ from its domain name.

A glassware and apparel company that goes by the name Grandstand has filed a UDRP against GrandStand.com, a common word domain name that was registered in 1995.

Based on DomainTools historical whois records, the current registrant has owned the domain name since at least 2001, which is when DomainTools started collecting records on the domain name. It is very likely the original owner.

The glassware company, Screen-It Graphics of Lawrence, Inc. d/b/a Grandstand, registered eGrandStand.com in or after 2004.

Grandstand.com has been resolving to “coming soon” pages without ads for many years.

Barring some sort of extenuating circumstances that aren’t apparent to me, this case is a candidate for reverse domain name hijacking.

Share7
Share12
+111
Email
Shares 46

Donuts files opening brief in .Web appeal

by — Policy & Law 8 Comments

Company believes covenant not to sue is invalid.

New top level domain name company Donuts, through its company Ruby Glen, LLC, filed its opening brief (pdf) last week in an appeal over the .web domain name.

Donuts was one of the applicants for the .web domain name. Nu Dot Co won the auction for $135 million after Verisign struck a deal with it to transfer the ICANN agreement for .web to it after the auction.

The runner up in the auction was Afilias, not Donuts, but Donuts was upset that Nu Dot Co wouldn’t participate in a private auction for the domain name. Instead, Nu Dot Co pushed it to an ICANN “auction of last resort”. Had the auction been private, Donuts would have received about a $22.5 million payoff for losing. Click to continue reading…

Share6
Share4
+1
Email
Shares 33