Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News

Domain Name Industry News

Featured Domains

Media Bridge ad agency attempts reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Ad agency files “egregious” cybersquatting claim.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

Media Bridge Inc., which does business as Media Bridge Advertising, has been found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking to get the domain MediaBridge.com.

The company filed the complaint against Mediabridge Infosystems Inc., which registered the domain name in 1994. The UDRP decision states that the Complainant claims rights dating to 2010.

It’s quite apparent that the domain name owner has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that it couldn’t have registered it in bad faith in 1994 to target an as-yet-non-existent advertising agency.

The Respondent didn’t specifically ask for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, but panelist Dennis Foster said that “given the egregious nature of this filing,” it should be addressed.

In this case, the Panel believes that it should have been obvious to Complainant that the first (and dominant) term of Respondent’s corporate name, “Mediabridge Infosystems, Inc.,” mirrored the disputed domain name, mediabridege.com (sic), and that the name had been registered by Respondent some sixteen yeas before Complainant was even created. Ergo, Complainant could never have hoped to prevail with respect to the last two elements required under the Policy, because Respondent most likely would have been commonly known as the disputed domain name to a relevant public and there was absolutely no basis to claim that the name was registered in bad faith…

…As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant in initiating this proceeding has attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

Media Bridge, Inc. was represented by Alexander J. Farrell. The decision does not indicate that the Respondent was represented by counsel.

Naturals.com loss is a “win” for Indian law firm

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Its client lost but the panelist didn’t find reverse domain name hijacking.

Screenshot for Naturals.in showing a woman sitting on a chair

A chain of beauty salons in India that uses the domain Naturals.in failed to get Naturals.COM through UDRP.

A UDRP for Naturals.com that was filed in October has been found in favor of the domain name registrant. The case was filed by an India-based chain of hair salons and training centers.

It will come as no surprise that the Complainant lost the case for this dictionary-word domain name. But the law firm that represented the Complainant might view it as a win, because it wasn’t found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking again.

The law firm DePenning & DePenning represented the beauty chain. It has been on the wrong end of at least three reverse domain name hijacking cases, including one last week.

This case could have gone that way. The domain owner registered the domain in 2001, and it seems that the beauty chain’s presence, at least online, started well after that. It didn’t register Naturals.in until much later.

The Complainant’s arguments seem rather flimsly and misguided:

Complainant further states that the use and existence of Domain Name will cause damage to Complainant’s business and reputation, and to customers and the general public. Any misrepresentation caused on account of the Domain Name would result in confusion and deception in the minds of customers. In this regard, domain names are emerging corporate assets and have evolved as a fulcrum of a company’s visibility and marketing operations. Business transactions will soon be carried out only through Internet addresses rather than street addresses, post boxes or faxes. Complainant states that it will not be able to effectively pursue its business plans on the Internet unless the registration of the Domain Name is held by Complainant. Complainant states it is the legitimate owner of the domain names naturals.in and naturals.lk, through which it undertakes business and promotional activities. In view of the Domain Name’s registration, Complainant stands to lose financially and faces the imminent risk of dilution of brand value associated with the mark NATURALS.

Apparently, this concern didn’t develop until just last year.

World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Christopher Gibson gave the Complainant a pass on reverse domain name hijacking:

Panels have found that the mere lack of success of a complaint is not itself sufficient for a finding of RDNH. In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant satisfied two of the three elements under the Policy. Complainant seems to have been convinced that, while it has trademark rights in its NATURALS mark, Respondent was only using the Domain Name for the purpose of offering it for sale to Complainant at an amount clearly in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs. The file does not show that Complainant knew or should have clearly known that it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the Complaint and before receiving Respondent’s Response.

I disagree. I think with a bit of due diligence, the Complainant would have known that this case was doomed to fail. The domain was clearly not registered in bad faith.

BHP CISO runs into roadblock using UDRP to take down criticism site

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Panel determines the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith given trademark date.

Blue image with the letters UDRP

The Chief Information Security Officer of mining and petroleum giant BHP has lost an attempt to take down a criticism site by using the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Thomas Leen filed the dispute against the domain name Thomas-Leen.com. The site shows a picture of Leen with the word “Bully” on it and includes several derogatory comments about him. The site shows up at the top of Google search results for his name.

After the site was created, Leen registered an Andorran trademark for his name. While the panel agreed that the domain was confusingly similar to Leen’s mark, it found that the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith because it predated Leen’s trademark.

Leen could have argued common law rights predating the domain’s registration. This would be difficult because UDRP panels are cautious about accepting common law rights on personal names, especially when the person isn’t a major celebrity. Still, arguing common law rights would have given him a better chance at winning than using rights registered after the domain was registered.

The panel also noted that questions about whether criticism is accurate or defamatory fall outside the scope of the policy.

Leen might do better to create sites and social profiles that rise higher in the search results, such as a personal site and LinkedIn profile.

Lotto.com, purchased for $2.68 million in 2017, survives cybersquatting challenge

by — Domain Sales 4 Comments

No-brainer case reveals purchase price of Lotto.com.

Picture of lottery balls in green, purple, blue and red

A German lottery operator has failed to take the domain name Lotto.com from another lottery operator through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Bremer Toto und Lotto GmbH filed the dispute in October. Even without reviewing the case details, it was obvious that this case was dead on arrival.

The Complainant argued that Cavour Ltd. might use the domain name for an illegal lottery in Germany. But it failed to make even a prima facie case that Cavour (Lottoland), a lottery company, lacked rights or interests in the domain. It also failed to prove that the domain was registered in bad faith.

For some reason, the World Intellectual Property Organization panel failed to consider if this is was case of reverse domain name hijacking.

The UDRP response disclosed a major domain name sale. Cavour revealed that it purchased the domain for $2.68 million.

Another reverse domain hijacking finding against DePenning & DePenning

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Law firm is behind another reverse domain name hijacking case.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

DePenning & DePenning, a law firm in India, has filed another UDRP that was found to be reverse domain name hijacking.

Previous reverse domain name hijacking findings against the firm’s cases include bosch.net and CEATE.com. In the latter case, the panel found that the Complaint included manufactured evidence.

The latest case was filed by silk retailer and manufacturer Nalli Chinnasami Chetty against the domain name NalliGroup.com. The panel determined that the case was filed in bad faith despite the domain owner not responding.

Canadian television producer Anthony Nalli, host of The Aviators, owns the domain name. Once the registrar verification was concluded after the original UDRP was filed, the domain owner’s information was made available to Nalli Chinnasami Chetty and DePenning & DePenning. At this point, it was clear that the domain owner had a legitimate interest in the domain and did not register it in bad faith. But the Complainant went ahead without changing its argument.

Panelist David Bernstein thus found the Complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. He wrote:

The conduct in this case falls under the category of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Once the privacy shield was lifted through the Registrar Verification, the Complainant and its counsel knew that they could not possibly succeed on any fair interpretation of the facts in this case. By filing an amended Complaint and repeating the same arguments that were in the initial Complaint, the Complainant and its counsel abused the WIPO administrative process in an attempt to obtain the disputed domain despite the inconvenient fact that the Respondent was Mr. Nalli. Rather than address that point, the Complainant and its counsel simply repeated the same arguments, baldly asserting that Mr. Nalli could have no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name other than to usurp the Complainant’s goodwill. The Complaint was therefore completely devoid of any facts or arguments that could support a finding that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant and its counsel also provided no evidentiary support whatsoever to support their argument that the Respondent must have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. As such, they completely ignored the requirements set out in the Policy for establishing bad faith registration and use of a domain name..