A new Turkish car company tries a novel argument.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found Türkiye’nin Otomobili Girişim Grubu Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a dispute over togg.com.

The Complainant plans to sell Turkey’s first domestically-produced automobile. It was formed in 2018 and registered the country code domain togg.com.tr for its business.

It wants togg.com, but of course, that was registered a long time ago. Perhaps realizing the dates were not in its favor, the Complainant made a rather novel argument that the domain owner “keeps” the domain in bad faith.

Attorney John Berryhill, representing the domain owner (who uses the domain, by the way), was incredulous. In his response, he wrote:

…Not a single place in the entire Complaint, does the Complainant come right out and say that the domain name was registered after the mark was announced. The Complaint does not say that, because the Complainant knew, when it filed the Complaint, it would be a false statement. The only other place where the Complainant attempts to make a bad faith reigstration allegation is at page 14 where the Complainant alleges:

“It is likely that the Respondent keeps the disputed domain name in bad faith in an aim to obtain unfair benefits from the high reputation of the TOGG Trademark which created a tremendous impression due to the great launch.”

Keeps? The Respondent “keeps” the disputed domain name in bad faith? What is that nonsense supposed to mean under the Policy? Again, the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the domain name was registered in bad faith and was used in bad faith. But the allegation here, along with the empty chest-thumping about a “great launch” of no products whatsoever so far, is purely intended to mislead the reader. It is not a violation of the Policy to “keep” a domain name which has been used for the same business for 18 years. The Complainant knew it had to use the word “keeps” instead of “registered”, because the Complainant knows this case was filed as a bad faith attempt to steal a legitimately registered and used senior name.

The Complainant later tried to withdraw the complaint, but the Respondent said it would only agree if the Complainant agreed not to file another UDRP against the domain or pursue it via judicial means. Apparently, the car company did not agree, so panelist Matthew Kennedy decided the case in the Respondent’s favor and found reverse domain name hijacking.

Gün + Partners represented the Complainant.

Law firm went after domain in GoDaddy’s NameFind portfolio.

A World Intellectual Property Organization has found a French law firm to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

Lerins & BCW filed a cybersquatting dispute against GoDaddy’s NameFind for Lerins.com.

According to the decision, the Complainant acquired the intellectual property of a defunct legal group named Lerins and plans to shorten its name to Lerins.

The law firm tried to acquire the domain but found that the asking price was $9,888. That’s about three times what GoDaddy’s own domain appraisal tool says the domain is worth. (It’s unclear to me if GoDaddy owned the domain at the time of the inquiry; it appears this domain might have been acquired in a portfolio shortly thereafter.)

The Complainant states that, upon expressing its interest for the disputed domain name, the Registrar replied that the disputed domain name could be acquired for a price of USD 9,888 and, considering the disputed domain name appraisal value and DNI score from AFTERNIC of December 2, 2020, confirmed the real value was USD 3,000, it is highly likely that the Respondent and the Registrar, which belong to the same group of companies, were attempting to make a profit out of the sale of the disputed domain name, in trying to sell it at more than three time its normal value.

GoDaddy said the domain was originally acquired because of its value as a French or Scottish family name.

The three-person panel agreed and found that the Complainant failed to show that the domain was registered and used in bad faith, and failed to show that GoDaddy lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain. It also found that this was a case of reverse domain name hijacking:

The Panel concludes that the Complainant’s actions constitute Reverse Domain Name Hijacking for the following reasons:

i) the Complainant should have appreciated the weakness of its case and the fact that the term “Lerins” encompassed in the disputed domain name cannot be exclusively referable to the Complainant;

ii) the Complainant’s case is based on the argument that offering a disputed domain name for sale for an amount exceeding the related out-of-pocket costs, independently of any awareness of the Complainant and its trademark, is of itself evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant should have contemplated that it could not succeed with such an argument;

iii) the circumstances of the case clearly show that this is a speculative case brought by the Complainant after its failure to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent’s predecessor in title…

Lerins & BCW represented itself. Levine Samuel, LLP represented GoDaddy.