Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Italian company InfoCert tries reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Infocert S.p.a. files cybersquatting complaint in abuse of UDRP.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

Infocert S.p.a., which bills itself as the largest certification authority in Europe, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name InfoCert.com.

The company appears to use the domain names Infocert.digital and Infocert.it for its websites.

It filed a cybersquatting complaint under UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization. The case was dead on arrival; the owner of the domain registered it in 1998, which was six years before Infocert started its business.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Nick Gardner also noted that the Complainant neglected to mention that it tried to buy the domain before filing the cybersquatting dispute. He also said Infocert’s case that “infocert” was a coined word that could only relate to itself was wrong. It is an “obvious conjoining of the abbreviations for ‘information’ and ‘certificate’,” he noted.

Studio Torta S.p.A. represented the Complainant. Greenberg & Lieberman represented the domain owner.

AbdulBasit Makrani gets reverse domain name hijacking win

by — Policy & Law 15 Comments

Panel finds in domain investor’s favor over AguaDulce.com domain.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

Pakistani Domain name investor AbdulBasit Makrani has successfully defended his domain AguaDulce.com in a UDRP and the panel found reverse domain name hijacking.

Sociedad Puerto Industrial Aguadulce S.A. operates a marine terminal in Colombia. It uses the domain name PuertoaAguaDulce.com.

Agua Dolce translates to “Sweet Water” in Spanish.

The Complainant made a number of arguments in its case. One of these was a search engine printout showing its website in response to a search for aguadulce. But the result was way down the SERPs and there are lots of other sites that show up for the term. The panel wrote:

What both Parties’ searches do demonstrate, taken together, is that a range of alternative meanings and possible uses of the term “aguadulce” (or “agua dulce”) exist, the majority of which do not denote the Complainant or its mark. There is considerable emphasis to be found on these alternative meanings or uses in the Respondent’s search and this provides adequate support for his case that he was not aware of the Complainant when he came to register the disputed domain name and that he did so to take advantage of its dictionary meaning.

This reminds me of something John Berryhill said on DNW Podcast #244: Google is sometimes the best trademark database.

The Complainant also pointed out that the Respondent has been on the receiving end of three UDRP filings at WIPO, where the instant case was filed. It neglected to point out that the Respondent won two of the cases (and didn’t respond to the first).

The port owner also said the Respondent has been subject to proceedings at another UDRP administrator, but the panelists could not find any such cases.

Makrani said this was a case of a company trying to buy a domain and then resorting to UDRP after it didn’t like the price.

The majority found that the case constitutes reverse domain name hijacking.

Howard Neu represented AbdulBasit Makrani. Brigard & Castro represented the Complainant.

Writing about the case on his blog, Makrani stated that the Complainant’s law firm “are bunch of morons and Reverse Domain Name Hijackers who not only mislead the panelists by falsely mentioning that I was involved in other cases whereas they failed to provide any such reference but they also concealed the entire proceedings and the final outcome of my last two UDRP decisions which went completely in my favor.”

Mamar tries to reverse hijack domain from Mrs Jello

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Canadian company that owns Mamar.ca tries to get matching .com through UDRP.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

Mamar Group LTD, a Canadian company that sells products on Amazon and at Mamar.ca, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Mamar.com.

The domain is owned by Mrs Jello, LLC, a domain investment company created by the late Igal Lichtman. It acquired the domain name in 2006.

Mamar Group was formed just last year, so it had no chance of winning a cybersquatting case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It would be impossible to show the domain was registered in bad faith to target a company that didn’t exist until 12 years later.

The company first tried to buy the domain before filing the UDRP.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist David Taylor wrote:

…in the present case, the Panel considers that it was clear from the information available to the Complainant at the time of filing, under a plain reading of the Policy and taking account of readily‑available Policy precedent, that the Complainant could not prove the Respondent’s bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the Complainant knew, or should have known, that it could not succeed in its Complaint under any reasonable interpretation of the Policy. The above, combined with the Complainant’s failed attempt to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent, leads the Panel to conclude that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at RDNH and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

Overspray company Overreaches in cybersquatting dispute

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Company tries to get control of competitor’s domain but is nailed for reverse domain name hijacking instead.

Photo of car with overspray paint

An overspray removal company has been found to have tried reverse domain name hijacking a domain name through UDRP.

National Overspray Removal, LLC filed a cybersquatting complaint with National Arbitration Forum over the domain name nationaloversprayremovalservice.com.

The domain is owned by another Texas company that does overspray removal, a service for removing overspray paint and other chemicals from autos.

The Complainant relied on a trademark it filed in 2017 claiming first use in June 2010. But the Respondent registered the domain in May 2010. Furthermore, it’s clear the Respondent is using the domain for a business.

Noting the dates, panelist Steven M. Levy found in favor of the Respondent and reverse domain name hijacking.

The two parties are currently embroiled in a court case over the name.

Sports equipment company guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Panel finds Singapore company brought case in abuse of UDRP.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found Sport and Fashion, Pte. Ltd., a sports equipment/apparel company, guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

The company filed a cybersquatting complaint against the domain demix.com. It markets a brand called Demix.

Canadian company St. Lawrence Cement Inc owns the domain name. It markets cement products under the Demix brand.

The cement company registered the domain in 1998, well before the Complainant had any trademark rights to the term.

Based on the panel decision, it appears the Complainant might have copied-and-pasted information from another UDRP filing into this one:

The Complaint appears to have been prepared with very little attention to detail and as noted above includes erroneous references to a completely unrelated trademark. Once the intended respondent was identified as being a Canadian company likely to be involved in the cement business (given its name), it ought to have been obvious to the Complainant that the Respondent was likely to have independently coined the Disputed Domain Name. If the Complainant was in any way unclear on this issue, a few minutes Internet searching would have found the Respondent’s present web sites at for example “www.demixbeton.ca”. Similarly a search of the Canadian Trademarks Registry would have found a number of DEMIX-related trademarks predating the Complainant’s trademark – whilst these are in various corporate names this should nevertheless have alerted the Complainant to the potential difficulties with its case.