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

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

Weeds.com owner fights back, asks for damages for reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 9 Comments

Weeds.com owner asks court to penalize weed control company for reverse domain name hijacking.

Last year a regional weed control company in the United States called Weeds, Inc. filed a UDRP cybersquatting claim against Innovation HQ, Inc, the owner of Weeds.com.

Before the UDRP decision was published, Weeds, Inc. followed up by filing a federal lawsuit against Innovation HQ. Shortly thereafter, the World Intellectual Property Organization UDRP panel published its decision that Weeds, Inc. had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking by filing the UDRP.

It took a while for Weeds, Inc. to serve Innovation HQ, but now the case is moving forward. And as I predicted, this could end up being a costly case for the weed control company: Innovation HQ is fighting back.

Innovation HQ is asking the court (pdf) to grant damages for reverse domain name hijacking, plus other fees. It also alleges that Weeds, Inc. committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to get its trademark and is asking the court to order the trademark to be canceled. All told, if the court agrees, Weeds, Inc. could be forced to pay over $100,000.

John Berryhill is representing Innovation HQ.

Share10
Tweet
Share
Email
10 Shares

Maryland roofing company attempts reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

After unsuccessfully trying to buy a domain name for a decade, company files UDRP.

A Maryland roofing company has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name RoofPro.com.

RoofPro, LLC uses the domain name MarylandRoofers.com, which is a nice domain in at of itself. But the company wanted the domain that matches its business name, RoofPro.com.

The problem for the roofing company was that RoofPro.com was registered before it existed. So, starting in 2005, the company attempted to buy the domain name from its owner. Those attempts were not fruitful and it sent a demand letter in 2016.

Finally, in April this year, it decided to try its hand at the UDRP to get the domain name.

The World Intellectual Property Organization panel was not amused. It found RoofPro to have filed the case in abuse of the policy, aka attempting reverse domain name hijacking. The panel called the complainant’s reliance on its own unsuccessful attempts to buy or lease the domain in its arguments to the panel “wrong-headed”.

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP represented RoofPro, LLC. ESQwire.com represented the domain name owner.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email