Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News

Domain Name Industry News

Featured Domains

Siemplify, which has raised $58 million, attempts reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Company filed dispute after failing to purchase domain name.

Picture of masked man with the words reverse domain name hijacking

Cybersecurity company Siemplify, registered as Cyarx Technologies Ltd, has been found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking for the domain Siemplify.com.

Siemplify filed a cybersquatting case against the owner of the domain under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It did these even though the domain name owner registered the domain before Siemplify existed as a brand. Companies that file cybersquatting disputes must show that the registrant registered the domain in bad faith to target the brand holder. Because Siemplify.com was registered before the brand was created, it’s impossible that the Respondent registered it in bad faith to target the Siemplify.

It appears that Siemplify filed the case after failing to acquire the domain for the price it wanted. The company, which has raised $58 million in funding, tried to negotiate a purchase before filing the UDRP. This is known as “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking.

Siemplify uses the domain name Siemplify.co.

SIEM is a common term for Security Information and Event Management, and the domain owner says he registered it with this in mind.

Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz represented Siemplify. Douglas M. Isenberg represented the domain owner. World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Flip Jan Claude Petillion decided the dispute.

Seattle business guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Panelist calls the complaint “patently deficient.”

Picture of masked man with the words reverse domain name hijacking

UDRP panelists usually don’t find reverse domain name hijacking if a Complainant represents themselves. But World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Scott Blackmer decided it was warranted in a recent case.

Structure Cellars, which operates a wine tasting room in Seattle, filed a complaint against HouseofPagne.com (short for Champagne).

The registrant of the domain says she registered it and pitched the Complainant on an idea for a business. The two didn’t end up partnering on the venture. There’s a bit of he said, she said and there might be a legitimate dispute outside of the scope of UDRP.

But that dispute doesn’t warrant a cybersquatting dispute.

Blackmer noted that, even without counsel, the Complainant should have realized it was filing a bad case:

Here, the Complaint is patently deficient. The Complainant has trademark applications, not registrations, and it would need proof to establish common law rights. The Complaint does not address the obvious problem that the Complainant’s business was launched months after the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It should have been clear that if (sic) would be necessary to establish the relationship between the parties, but no evidence was submitted on this point. The Complainant is not represented by legal counsel, but these are common-sense rather than highly technical issues, and the Center’s forms, Rules, and Overview provide accessible guidance on these points. The Respondent, who is also not represented by counsel, certainly grasped their implication when completing the Center’s form Response…

…The Complainant may have a business dispute with the Respondent, but the Complainant should not have pursued a remedy designed only to protect trademark rights when it was not prepared to prove that it has such rights and that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in contemplation of the Complainant’s trademark rights. This is so fundamental to the Policy that it must be considered irresponsible to ignore.

Wine spat: Brewery and vineyard tries reverse hijacking SpringGate.com

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Pennslyvania brewery files bad case with WIPO.

Picture of masked man with the words reverse domain name hijacking

A Pennslyvania brewery and winery has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a dispute over SpringGate.com.

Schoffstall Farm, LLC, which does business as Spring Gate Vineyard, Winery and Brewery, attempted to get the domain name in a cybersquatting dispute at the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The company has traded as Spring Gate since 2014. But the domain’s owner, Ashantiplc Limited, registered the domain name in 2006. Therefore, it could not have registered the domain name in bad faith to target the non-existent brand.

Before filing the UDRP, the Complainant sent a demand letter to Ashanti. Domain attorney John Berryhill responded to the demand letter and noted that his client registered the domain before Schoffstall Farm had any trademark rights in the term. He also requested that the Schoffstall Farm include his response in any UDRP filing.

But the Complainant didn’t include this response. Instead, it argued in the UDRP that the domain was acquired in 2018. While it’s not clear why it chose this date, this is when the registrar Fabulous (where the domain is registered) changed its accredited name to Sea Wasp.

The Complainant also argued “retroactive bad faith”.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:

The Complainant is professionally represented in this matter and, in the opinion of the Panel, knew or ought to have known that it had no reasonable chance of prevailing in this proceeding for the reasons set out above. The Complainant produced no material evidence that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2018 and gave no reasonable explanation for its assertion to that effect. The Panel is particularly perturbed by the Complainant’s failure to exhibit the Respondent’s email dated November 28, 2019, stating that it had acquired the disputed domain name in 2006, having exhibited its own letter of the previous date and having been expressly requested by the Respondent to include its reply. The Panel is also of the view that the Complainant’s purported reliance on the Octogen line of cases implies its clear awareness that its case was fundamentally flawed.

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. represented the Complainant in the reverse domain name hijacking. John Berryhill represented the Respondent.

 

Thermamax tries reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

WIPO admonishes German company for reverse domain name hijacking.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel has determined that German company Thermamax Hochtemperaturdämmungen GmbH tried to reverse domain name hijack Tmax .com.

The owner of the domain name registered it in 2000. While Thermamax had a word and device mark for TMax at the time of registration, it was in Germany and the domain registrant is in South Korea. It appears that Thermamax began using the Tmax brand more broadly over time, but well after the domain was registered.

Certainly, a delay of 20 years from registration to the dispute would have given the panel pause.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:

For the various reasons outlined in this regard under Part 6.C above, the legally advised Complainant should have known that this was not a case in which it could successfully make out a case that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. It looks to the Panel as if this is a case in which the Complainant has, some years after registration of the disputed domain name, decided to gradually re-brand from “Thermomax” to “Tmax” and has undertaken a programme of registering or acquiring various domain names incorporating TMAX accordingly. More recently, in September 2019, the Panel infers on balance that the Complainant decided that it also required the key “.com” Top-Level domain name but after its efforts to contact the Respondent bore no results it then decided to proceed with this Complaint, regardless of the likelihood that it would not be able to demonstrate the Respondent’s registration in bad faith. This is not the purpose for which the Policy was conceived and in the Panel’s view amounts to reverse domain name hijacking.

Reble & Klose Attorneys & Patentattorneys represented Thermamax. The domain owner, MySite Corporate, represented itself. The panelists were Alistair Payne, Andrea Jaeger-Lenz and Steven A. Maier.

Loco UDRP ends in reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Tech company tries to hijack domain name registered in 1999.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A Brazilian technology company has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in its effort to get the domain name InLoco.com. The Complainant, In Loco Tecnologia da Informação S.A., uses InLoco.com.br for its website.

The phrase “in loco” is a common Latin phrase meaning “in the place” or “in the right or proper spot”. (Loco also means “crazy” in Spanish, and loco is an apt description of this case.)

The owner of the domain name registered it in 1999, well before the Complainant was established in 2014. In Loco Tecnologia attempted to acquire the domain name from the registrant before filing the UDRP complaint.

After filing the complaint, In Loco Tenologia tried to withdraw it. But the domain name owner said he’d only consent to this if it was with prejudice, meaning that it couldn’t be filed again at a later date. He also wanted the panel to rule on reverse domain name hijacking.

The three-person World Intellectual Property Organization panel agreed with the domain name owner:

To allow a complainant to simply withdraw a complaint without prejudice after a response has been filed would allow for the possibility of a complainant refiling a complaint against the same respondent at a later point. Such “eleventh hour withdrawals” of complaints without prejudice invites the filing of potentially abusive complaints for strategic reasons.

It found that the Complainant had no chance of winning the case and attempted reverse domain name hijacking.



Domain Wheel

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!