Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Company tries to hijack PlugandPlay.com domain name

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Venture capital and accelerator company tries to get PlugAndPlay.com through cybersquatting dispute.

VC tried to get PlugandPlay.com domain.

A California company has been found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking of the domain name PlugAndPlay.com.

Plug & Play, LLC, a California venture capital firm that runs 50 accelerators around the world, tried to get the domain name PlugAndPlay.com from its rightful owner by claiming he was cybersquatting. The Complainant uses the domain name PlugandPlayTechCenter.com.

The case was going to be difficult to win even without looking at the details: “plug and play” is a common technology term that has been used extensively in marketing.

But it’s the details that led to World Intellectual Property Organization panelist W. Scott Blackmer determining that Plug & Play, LLC filed the case in abuse of the policy. The key issue is that the Complainant didn’t even exist when the domain owner registered the domain name. This means it was impossible for the domain owner to register the domain in bad faith to target the Complainant.

Blackmer wrote:

A finding of RDNH is warranted, for example, when a panel finds that the complainant (especially one represented by counsel) should have recognized that it could not succeed on one of the three elements of the complaint under any fair interpretation of the available facts or brings a complaint based “on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence” (id.). That is the case here, where the Domain Name, based on a common English phrase, was created before the Complainant business was even formed, and the Respondent already had its own established business with a corresponding name. The Complainant failed to investigate these obvious difficulties, and its Supplemental Filing then overlooked facts (prominently, the relationships between the successive Domain Name registrants) that were available even in the Response and its attachments. Hence, the Panel grants the request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

The domain owner also alleged that Plug & Play tried to mislead the panel by omitting emails showing that the Complainant initiated discussions about buying the domain name, rather than the other way around. It appears that the domain owner offered to sell the domain for $100,000-$150,000, which seems like a very fair price for this domain.

Share16
Tweet
Share
Email

Third RDNH involving Indian law firm

by — Policy & Law 8 Comments

…and its managing partner is a WIPO panelist.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

The Indian Hotels Company Limited, a subsidiary within The Tata Group of companies, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name IndianHotels.com.

The decision isn’t surprising given the descriptive nature of the name and other factors. The three-member panel unanimously agreed that the Complainant abused the administrative proceeding by filing the case.

Here’s what’s particularly notable about the case: the Complainant was represented by Anand & Anand, a law firm in India. By my count, this is the third reverse domain name hijacking decision against this firm’s clients.

Even more concerning is that Pravin Anand, the firm’s managing partner, is a panelist for World Intellectual Property Organization. It’s not clear which attorneys at the firm filed the UDRP cases, but it’s troubling that it has been hit with three reverse domain name hijacking decisions, and extra troubling given that its managing partner serves as a panelist.

Share15
Tweet
Share
Email

Another reason to not let your web developer register your domain name

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Even if they aren’t a bad person, something could happen to them.

I’ve written many times about disputes over domain names between web developers/designers and their clients. Usually, these are cases of a web developer registering the domain in his or her name and holding it hostage if the client ever wants to get control of the domain name. There are similar disputes with employees who register company names in their own name.

It might be difficult for a client to explain to their developer that they want to register a domain in their own name because they don’t necessarily trust the developer. So here’s another, simpler argument for always registering a domain in your company’s name rather than the developer’s: the developer might get hit by a bus.

In a recent National Arbitration Forum case, Ohio company Thermotion, LLC claimed that its web developer ceased operations, apparently because of the death of its operator. The company is now having difficulty getting control of the domain name. The case was denied because Thermotion didn’t show that the registrant lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain.

So the next time a web developer pushes back on who controls the domain name, clients have something other than “I don’t trust you not to screw me” as an argument. They can point to this case as an example in which the client couldn’t access the domain despite an apparent lack of mal intent by the developer.

Share24
Tweet
Share
Email

Citadel should have sent an email rather than filing a UDRP

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Investment firm might have achieved its desired result by sending an email. Instead, it lost a UDRP.

Fund manager Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC lost a UDRP it filed against the domain name citadel-investment.com, and it’s a lesson in determining the best approach to go after a potentially infringing domain name.

A company in Oman registered the domain name in August 2018. Citadel was concerned that it would be used in an infringing way because of the inclusion of ‘investment’ in the domain. That’s understandable.

It turns out that the registrant registered the domain name on behalf of its client Citadel Investment LLC, which was founded in 2004 and holds a commercial license issued in that name by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in Oman.

Given the short timeframe and the explanation for registration, the National Arbitration Forum panel denied the claim because Citadel Enterprise Americas did not show that the domain was registered in bad faith.

Here’s the kicker: in its response, the domain owner offered to transfer the domain to the Complainant for its out-of-pocket costs.

This seems like a case in which the Complainant would have been better off sending an email to the domain owner before filing a UDRP. The domain is registered at GoDaddy and has a public Whois record, so it would have been easy to contact the owner.

Now the company wasted money on a UDRP and still doesn’t have the domain.

Share15
Tweet
Share
Email

SSC.com saved in UDRP

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Ohio company fails to convince panelist that the owner of SSC.com is cybersquatting.

A World Intellectual Property Organization has denied a cybersquatting complaint brought against the domain name SSC.com.

Service Spring Corp. of Maumee, Ohio, filed the cybersquatting complaint under UDRP against the valuable three-letter domain name. The domain is owned by someone in China who seems to be a domain name investor.

From reading the decision, it doesn’t seem that the domain owner relied much on being an investor in short domains as part of his defense. However, the panelist agreed that there are many uses for this domain name and the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith to target the Ohio maker of springs.

The case was decided by panelist Warwick A. Rothnie.

Share10
Tweet
Share
Email