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

BTSA.com: Cybersquatting or RDNH? You decide.

by — Policy & Law 6 Comments

WIPO panelist makes a questionable decision.

World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Warwick A. Rothnie has determined that the owner of BTSA.com is cybersquatting and that the domain should be transferred to BTSA Biotecnologias Aplicadas, S.L.

Rothnie’s decision is surprising. You can make a good argument that this was actually a case of attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

It’s a bit convoluted because the domain name is financed by Domain Capital. Rothnie decided that the financing company is the true owner of the domain, which it financed in 2014. But the fact is that the beneficial owner registered the domain in 2003.

Although the Complainant says it existed prior to that, it didn’t register a domain for its website until 2004.

The Complainant has a registered trademark for BTSA BIOTECNOLOGÍAS APLICADAS as a figurative mark. Rothnie found this confusingly similar to the BTSA.com domain name.

What’s quite clear from reading the decision is that the beneficial owner of the domain acquired the domain for its value as a four letter domain, and that is how Domain Capital likely financed it. The decision says the domain was parked but did not show ads related to the Complainant.

That’s not cybersquatting.

The Complainant says it first discovered the use of BTSA.com when it decided to set up a subsidiary in the United States. It tried to acquire the domain and that failed. It then filed the UDRP.

I’d make an argument that this is a case of Plan B reverse domain name hijacking, not cybersquatting.

If nothing else, it’s not a clear case of cybersquatting and I believe Rothnie made the wrong decision.

Share38
Tweet
Share
Email

Defunct app maker hit with reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

App maker files UDRP and then shuts down its business.

The maker of a now-defunct app called Yish has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Yish.com.

The company used various domain names including yishapp.com, yish.co, yish.app, yish.io and yish.menu. It understandably wanted Yish.com, but that domain was registered by Kevin Ham’s Vertical Axis back in 2001. Yish didn’t file for a trademark and began using the term until 2017.

You can understand why the panel found the app maker to have filed the case in bad faith. But this case is a bit odd: before the decision was reached, the app maker informed World Intellectual Property Organization that it was shutting down its business and asked the panel to terminate the case.

Knowing that it had a slam dunk case and likely reverse domain name hijacking, Vertical Axis (now called Blue Nova) objected to terminating the case. Therefore, the panel completed its review and found reverse domain name hijacking.

Blue Nova was represented by ESQwire.com.

Share463
Tweet
Share
Email

Gesab, S.A. tries to reverse domain name hijack DeskWall.com

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Panelist says Complainant knew or (should have known) that it couldn’t prove registration and use in bad faith.

Gesab, S.A., a company in Barcelona that sells a product called DeskWall, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking by filing a cybersquatting complaint against the domain name DeskWall.com.

The company first tried to by the domain name for $500. The owner requested $6,399.

In the World Intellectual Property Decision, the panelist notes that the “Complainant argues that the fact that Respondent registered the disputed domain name before Complainant’s trademark registration should not sway the Panel’s analysis considering Respondent’s business strategy.”

Well, that is a requirement of UDRP that can’t be ignored. It’s difficult to argue that the domain was registered in bad faith to target a company when that company didn’t have rights when the domain was registered.

The panelist noted:

…In the Panel’s opinion, Complainant knew or at least should have known that it could not prove registration and use in bad faith. As explained earlier, however, Complainant came nowhere near building a case for this essential UDRP element. Complainant should have known that its failure to even allege a senior right in the DESKWALL mark was likely to prove fatal to its prospects in this proceeding.

2. Furthermore, before launching this case, Complainant contacted Respondent and offered to buy the disputed domain name for USD 500, without offering any arguments that it possessed a legal claim relating to the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, this is another example of a case where a party, frustrated in its attempt to buy a domain name, resorts to the ultimate option of an artificial claim untethered to facts or the plain wording of the UDRP.

Share19
Tweet
Share
Email

Reverse domain name hijacking (even with no response)

by — Policy & Law 3 Comments

Panelist finds Mister Auto SAS filed complaint in abuse of policy despite domain name owner not responding.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found Mister Auto SAS in France guilty of reverse domain name hijacking for the domain name MisterAuto.com.

The decision by panelist John Swinson comes despite the domain name owner not responding in the case. Yet it was a fairly easy decision; the domain was registered well before the Complainant existed and the Complainant made no argument to address this.

It’s not surprising that Mister Auto wanted MisterAuto.com. It uses the hyphenated domain name Mister-Auto.com to sell auto parts. It sent a cease & desist letter to the domain name owner and never heard back.

Swinson summed up Mister Auto SAS’ action in filing the UDRP:

The Panel considers the Complainant launched the proceedings out of desperation as its prior attempt to contact the Respondent went unanswered (and the webpage did not resolve – revealing no clues as to the Respondent’s possible motives) but without a reasonable chance of success and as such in the circumstances constitutes an abuse of the Administrative Proceeding.

Mister Auto was represented by Cairn Legal in Belgium.

Share35
Tweet
Share
Email