Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

A reminder for UDRP filers: Mess up? You can always apologize

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

If a complainant representative isn’t aware of all of the facts, it can always say mea culpa.

Cricket South Africa, an organization behind a professional cricket competition in South Africa in the T20 format, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

It was a complex case in which the complainant’s attorney likely didn’t have all of the facts. The respondent called out the complainant with the real facts. When it did, rather than apologize, the complainant doubled down.

For that, it was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

The timeline is long and it’s worth reviewing the entire decision. But I’ll summarize here: Click here to continue reading…

Share
Share
+1
Email

Guess what? Clothing company GUESS is a reverse domain name hijacker

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Company wanted G81.com domain name but the panelist says the clothing company tried to mislead it.

A National Arbitration Form panel has found clothing company Guess (NYSE:GES) to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name G81.com.

Guess filed a complaint arguing that the owner of the domain name was cybersquatting with the domain name. The owner of the domain name bought it, as well as many other three character domain names, as an investment. At the same time he acquired the domain he also acquired g83.com and g87.com.

The owner of G81.com said he had never heard of Guess’ G81 mark, which Guess says it has been using on its clothing since at least 2001. You can understand why the domain owner couldn’t find it; search for G81 on Google and you won’t find Guess on the first page. Amusingly, search for G81 on Guess.com and you’ll get this result:

The domain owner also called three Guess stores and the company’s national call center to inquire about the product and was told that they don’t carry a product by that name.

He asked the complainant to show him how the brand was being used and was stonewalled.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panelist noted: Click here to continue reading…

Share12
Share
+1
Email
Shares 22

Vulfpeck band member tries reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Jack Stratton filed a dispute to try to get the domain name Vulf.com on behalf of the record label.

Vulfpeck performing in NYC. Its label was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. Photo credit EvanLBerent / CC 2.0

A founding member of the funk group Vulfpeck has been found guilty of trying to reverse hijack a domain name in a cybersquatting dispute.

Jack Stratton filed the dispute with National Arbitration Forum on behalf of Vulf Records. He argued that the domain name Vulf.com was cybersquatting on its brand.

But the current owner of Vulf.com owned it well before ether Vulfpeck or the record label were formed, according to the decision.
The three-member panel noted that Vulf Records didn’t appear to be represented by counsel, which might explain why its filing was so bad. Still, the panel said that Stratton should have known the case was doomed to fail:

Even though Complainant appears to be self-represented, he should have recognized that a domain name registered years before the Complainant even claims to have begun using the mark could not possibly have been registered in a bad faith effort to exploit the Complainant’s mark.

Share
Share
+1
Email

Payments company commits reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

LeuPay company tries to hijack domain rather than pay for it.

A Bulgarian payments company has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in a cybersquatting dispute over the domain name LeoPay.com.

iCard AD offers services under the name LeuPay and is getting ready to start using the name LeoPay instead, according to the WIPO decision.

The owner of LeoPay.com has owned the domain name since well before the complainant had trademark rights in either LeuPay or LeoPay. He also used the domain name.

But iCard went after it anyway, making claims like “retroactive bad faith” and claiming the domain owner didn’t have a legitimate interest in the domain despite his use of it.

Panelist Sebastian Hughes did a nice summary of why this case qualifies as reverse domain name hijacking: Click here to continue reading…

Share
Share
+1
Email

Insurance company Allianz tries reverse domain name hijacking a domain name

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

World Intellectual Property Organization panelists have harsh words for insurance giant.

Insurance giant Allianz has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to get the domain name AGCS.com.

The company formed a business called Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty in 2006 and, at some point, started referring to this group at AGCS. It subsequently used agcs.allianz.com for the business and registered myagcs.com in 2013.

The domain owner acquired the domain name in 2010 due to its value as a four letter domain.

The panel determined that Allianz’s evidence did not show any use of the acronym prior to 2017. Apparently, much of its evidence supported how Allianz (not AGCS) is a well-known brand.

In finding RDNH, the majority of the panel wrote:

…Complainant made numerous allegations concerning its rights in AGCS, and how well-known AGCS has become as referring to Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE, that Complainant completely failed to support with any evidence…

…Complainant made no attempt to prove any rights in AGCS prior to May 2010 and only provided evidence of its use of AGCS in late 2017

…Simply put, the facts in this proceeding demonstrate that Complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of the facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the Complaint and that basing its Complaint on the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence – such as claiming bad faith registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent with no proof of Complainant’s rights in the AGCS mark prior to May 2010 (and only showing use of AGCS by Complainant seven years after Respondent registered the disputed domain name) – was doomed to fail…

Share8
Share
+1
Email
Shares 22