Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News

Domain Name Industry News

Featured Domains

Instant Domain Search

Valve company AVK tries reverse hijacking AVK.com

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Panel determines that company filed “Plan B” dispute after failing to buy domain name.

Logo for AVK Valvs

The valve company that uses AVKvalves.com filed a cybersquatting dispute in bad faith, a panel determined.

A Czech Arbitration Court panel has found that AVK Group attempted reverse domain name hijacking by filing a cybersquatting dispute over the domain name AVK.com. The valve company, which has annual sales of €773 million, uses the domain name AVKvalves.com.

AVK Group first attempted to buy the domain name but was apparently unhappy with the asking price. It then filed the dispute.

It actually filed the dispute twice. The first time it neglected to select which jurisdiction it would submit to should the dispute head to court. While a panel did not consider the case, the Respondent did reply to it, so AVK Group was apparently aware of the arguments against its claims. Despite seeing these arguments, it went ahead and filed the dispute again.

The domain name owner is an investor with many short domain names. This is a defensible practice, and the panel believed that the investor did not register the domain to try to extract money from AVK Group.

The panel wrote:

The UDRP was intended to serve as an efficient means of redress against cybersquatters, not a cheap alternative to commercial negotiation with legitimate domain name holders. The Panel therefore finds and declare that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding, and accordingly that the Complainant attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking within the meaning of the Policy.

The Complainant was represented by Plougmann Vingtoft Advokatanpartsselskab. The Respondent was represented by Muscovitch Law P.C.

“Unicorn” Nubank is a reverse domain name hijacker

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Brazilian financial company filed dead-on-arrival cybersquatting complaint.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

Nubank, a Brazilian finance startup that has raised billions in funding, tried to reverse domain name hijack the domain name Nubank.com.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist made the ruling after Nubank (Nu Pagamentos S.A.) made a cybersquatting claim against the domain name. The owner of the domain name didn’t respond to the dispute, but it’s clear that the domain was registered well before Nubank had any trademark rights in the term.

It appears that Nubank filed the complaint after failing to get a response to its purchase overtures.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Steven Maier 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, including in particular the fact that the disputed domain name had been registered many years before the Complainant began using the trademarks in question. Further, the Complainant’s admission that it has tried but failed to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent suggests to the Panel that this proceeding represents a fallback, in circumstances where the Complainant has failed to secure the disputed domain name by commercial negotiation. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

K&L Gates LLP represented Nubank.

Acubit tries reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Startup makes misguided arguments in attempt to get domain name registered in 2009

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A technology company based in Denmark has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name acubit.com. Based on the arguments it made, it seems that its law firm did not have a firm understanding of how UDRP works.

Among Acubit’s arguments that it should receive the domain name were that:

…under Danish trademark rules, the registration or maintenance of a domain name which conflicts with a trademark is contrary to good practice. It also contends that it is “standard practice” for a domain name to be assigned to the relevant trademark owner. The Complainant states that: “the right to use Acubit.com is much more interesting and valuable to Acubit A/S than to the Defendant” and adds that the Complainant has invested considerable resource into its trademark.

The Respondent registered the domain in 2009, well before the Complainant claims any trademark rights in the term acubit.

The panel found that Acubit should have known that it had no reasonable chance of prevailing in the proceeding and found that the case was brought in bad faith.

Acubit was represented by Hjulmand & Kaptain. The Respondent represented himself.

Domain Capital gets reverse domain name hijacking win

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

University in Spain filed dispute after it inquired about buying the domain name.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

Domain Capital has successfully defended its domain name UAX.com in a UDRP, and the Complainant was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

Universidad Privada De Madrid, S.A., a University in Spain, filed the complaint after it first tried to buy the domain name. It wasn’t happy with the asking price, so it followed up with a cease & desist letter. Domain Capital’s attorneys responded to the letter explaining Domain Capital’s rights, but the university filed a cybersquatting complaint anyway.

The university failed to convince the panel that the three-letter domain was registered in bad faith. Instead, it appears that Domain Capital acquired the domain because of the value of short domain names.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the three-person World Intellectual Property Organization panel wrote:

When the Complainant’s failure to appreciate the weaknesses of its case, despite being placed on prior notice by the Respondent, is coupled to the fact that it only launched the Complaint after unsuccessfully attempting to acquire the disputed domain name at its own chosen price, the Panel accepts the Respondent’s submission that the Complaint was what is popularly known as a “Plan B case”, was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

Domain Capital was represented by ESQwire.com. The university was represented by Legal Things Abogados.

Spanish fashion company tries to scalp Scalpers.com

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Company tries to get domain through UDRP after failing to buy it.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A Spanish fashion company has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking after trying to obtain the domain name Scalpers.com in a UDRP.

Scalpers Fashion, S.L. filed a cybersquatting complaint against the name with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The company faced an insurmountable obstacle: the owner of scalpers.com registered it before Scalpers Fashion had trademark rights, and the domain is a common English term.

The fashion company tried to buy the domain name but wasn’t happy with the six-figure asking price.

The three-member WIPO panel listed four reasons the case was considered reverse domain name hijacking:

1. the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent long before the Complainant obtained relevant rights in the Trade Mark;

2. the Complainant’s legal representatives have unreasonably ignored established UDRP panel positions set out in WIPO Overview 3.0;

3. the Complaint was filed after two unsuccessful attempts to purchase the disputed domain name, the first initiated by the Complainant in August 2017, and the second by the Complainant’s legal representatives in June 2019; and

4. the Respondent’s legal representatives wrote to the Complainant’s legal representatives after the filing of the Complaint, on December 16, 2019, pointing out that, in light of the undisputed facts, a finding of bad faith registration and use was impossible, and inviting the Complainant to withdraw the Complaint.

Scalpers Fashion was represented by CASAS ASIN. The domain name owner was represented by Zak Muscovitch.

Scalpers.com by DomainNameWire on Scribd