Energysquare tries to upgrade its domain name by abusing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
A French company that licenses wireless charging technology has been found to have tried reverse domain name hijacking the domain Energysquare.com.
Energysquare uses the domain name Energysquare.co, so it’s obvious why it wanted to upgrade.
The problem for the company is that the owner of the .com registered it before Energysquare existed, making it impossible that the domain owner registered the domain in bad faith to later sell the domain to the company.
World Intellectual Property Organization Panelist John Swinson found in the domain owner’s favor and determined that Energysquare was guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
Swinson determined that Energysquare alluded to certain provisions of UDRP that were not relevant to the current case. He wrote:
The Complainant’s only ground for bad faith was that the Respondent is a “domainer” who owns almost 1,000 domain names and that the disputed domain name is not being used but is listed for sale. The Complaint appears to rely on paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (ii) of the Policy but does not explicitly cite those provisions.
Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, it would be evidence of registration and use in bad faith if there are circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant for a large profit. As the Complainant did not exist when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, this could not have been the Respondent’s primary intention at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name…
Finally, the Complainant indirectly implies that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names for the purpose of reselling, as the Respondent owns many domain names, which are for sale. However, simply owning a number of domain names is not of itself evidence of bad faith. In order for the Panel to find that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct for the purpose of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, the domain names which the Respondent has registered would need to reflect third party trademarks, and an abusive conduct based on to the similarity of such domain names with the third party trademarks. Here, there is no such evidence, nor that the domain names were registered by the Respondent to prevent existing third party trademark owners from the registration of the corresponding domain names.
Walter Billet Avocats represented Energysquare. The domain owner represented itself.