Company that uses GetBlockCard.com filed cybersquatting dispute against BlockCard.com domain name.
Blockchain and cryptocurrency company Ternio has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name BlockCard.com. The company offers a service called BlockCard that uses the domain name GetBlockCard.com.
Simply Wireless, Inc., the Respondent in the case, acquired the domain name at Sedo on January 11, 2018.
Ternio said that it filed a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office On January 15, 2018 and that the Respondent acquired the domain on January 16, 2018. It used as evidence a TheDomains.com report of Sedo sales that was dated January 16, 2018.
But World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Nick Gardner pointed out that the story on TheDomains referred to “weekly” sales at Sedo, so this doesn’t show that the domain was acquired on January 15, 2018. Indeed, the Respondent submitted evidence showing that it acquired the domain on January 11.
This information is public, too, if you dig for it. NameBio has an entry showing the sale on January 11, 2018 for $6,200.
It turns out that the evidence Ternio submitted shows that the Whois data for the domain was updated on January 14, 2018. Apparently, Ternio ignored this date in its complaint.
Ternio originally filed the trademark on an intent-to-use trademark. This was not discussed in the decision, and it probably doesn’t matter. If the Respondent had acquired the domain the day after the Complainant filed a trademark application, it would look suspicious.
But this is simply not the case, and the Complainant should have known this.
Panelist Gardner found reverse domain name hijacking for many reasons. In addition to the date issue, the Ternio submitted over 400 pages of material that it said showed the fame of the Block Card mark. But most of it was general corporate publicity that didn’t mention Block Card at all. Further, the publicity postdated the Respondent’s purchase of the domain.
Overall the Panel has reached the conclusion that the Complaint deliberately overstates the Complainant’s case in a way which could well have misled the Panel, particularly if no response had been filed. The Panel considers that merits a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Zlatkin Wong LLP represented Ternio, LLC. No lawyer is listed as representing Simply Wireless.