Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Mamar tries to reverse hijack domain from Mrs Jello

by — Policy & Law 4 Comments

Canadian company that owns Mamar.ca tries to get matching .com through UDRP.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

Mamar Group LTD, a Canadian company that sells products on Amazon and at Mamar.ca, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name Mamar.com.

The domain is owned by Mrs Jello, LLC, a domain investment company created by the late Igal Lichtman. It acquired the domain name in 2006.

Mamar Group was formed just last year, so it had no chance of winning a cybersquatting case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It would be impossible to show the domain was registered in bad faith to target a company that didn’t exist until 12 years later.

The company first tried to buy the domain before filing the UDRP.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist David Taylor wrote:

…in the present case, the Panel considers that it was clear from the information available to the Complainant at the time of filing, under a plain reading of the Policy and taking account of readily‑available Policy precedent, that the Complainant could not prove the Respondent’s bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the Complainant knew, or should have known, that it could not succeed in its Complaint under any reasonable interpretation of the Policy. The above, combined with the Complainant’s failed attempt to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent, leads the Panel to conclude that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at RDNH and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

Cayenne Sex: Porsche tries to take down escort’s website

by — Policy & Law 7 Comments

Car company was upset about escort’s website that referred to Porsche’s SUV.

Picture of three chili pappers in red, green and yellow with the words "Cayenne Sex"

The car company Porsche filed a cybersquatting complaint against an escort service’s website but ended up flaccid.

Porsche was upset that an escort service used the domain name CayenneSex(.)com. Porche makes an SUV called the Cayenne. And it was clear that the sex service’s owner thought about the car company when creating the site. An archive of the site (translated into English) notes “Hot as the Porsche & Sharp like the Chili Pepper!!!”

But World Intellectual Property Organization panelist John Swinson determined that Porsche didn’t show that the escort service lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain. He said the reference to Porsche was fairly nominal and perhaps the chili pepper was more important.

Swinson had some fun with this case, doing some of his own research into peppers and sex:

The Panel notes that, while the term “cayenne” is indeed a trade mark owned by the Complainant, perhaps even a well-known or famous one, it is also a type of chilli pepper which is known for being particularly hot or spicy. (It is even apparently believed by some that the aphrodisiac power of hot chilli peppers can be somewhat amazing.)

Even though it lost the case, Porsche might have succeeded in its goal. The domain name no longer resolves to a website.

The Chronicle of Higher Education defends LinguaFranca.com domain

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Man files cybersquatting complaint in an effort to revive Lingua Franca brand.

Magazine cover of Lingua Franca, a defunct literary and academic publication

A blast from the past for academics.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, a publication covering academia, has successfully defended the domain name LinguaFranca.com in cybersquatting dispute.

Lingua Franca was a competitor that went bankrupt. In 2002, The Chronicle for Higher Education acquired rights to Lingua Franca and its trademark through the bankruptcy court. Since then, it has forwarded the domain to its website.

Enter John Summers, a man who wants to relaunch the publication. He obtained a U.S. trademark registration for the term and wants the domain name.

He tried to buy the domain from The Chronicle for $100 but was rebuffed. So he filed a cybersquatting complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Summers apparently didn’t hire a lawyer to file the case, and it shows. Any good cybersquatting lawyer would have told him that he didn’t have a case. It’s clear that The Chronicle originally acquired the domain name in good faith. UDRP requires that the Complainant show that it was registered and used in bad faith.

William R. Towns, a UDRP panelist for World Intellectual Property Organization, dutifully found in The Chronicle’s favor.

The problem with not finding reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 6 Comments

Panelists should find RDNH even when a complainant is just very misguided.

Reverse domain name hijacking graphic

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has given a free pass to a Complainant who seemed to not understand the requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Sébastien Paches filed a UDRP to get the domain name Paches.com for a business he is launching. A domain investor registered the domain before he had his business idea.

Paches tried to buy the domain but didn’t like the owner’s price, so he filed a UDRP.

This is a classic case of reverse domain name hijacking. But panelist Nick Gardner let him off the hook.

Paches was represented by counsel. His case was so dead-on-arrival that Gardner gave him a pass:

On balance the Panel does not consider the Complainant’s conduct warrants a finding of RDNH. It considers this is a case which should never have been brought and where the Complainant had no prospects whatsoever of succeeding. As such it is potentially within (i) above. There is also some evidence suggesting this is a situation whereby the Complainant has failed to buy the Disputed Domain Name at a price he was prepared to pay, and then adopted an alternative strategy of an unmeritorious Complaint. It is also the case (as the Respondent points out) that the Complainant was less than frank when seeking to buy the Disputed Domain Name claiming he wanted it for personal use as it corresponded to his family name and not mentioning his proposed business or asserting any legal claim. However the Complainant is not represented and it seems to the Panel that on balance he has simply failed to properly understand the Policy rather than acted deliberately in bad faith. Accordingly the Panel has concluded the Complainant’s conduct does not fall within the above guidelines and does not deserve the censure of a finding of RDNH.

While panelists sometimes go easy on Complainants who aren’t represented by counsel, it’s worth pointing out that the domain owner was represented by counsel. He likely paid several thousand dollars to defend the domain name. And while a finding of RDNH in a UDRP doesn’t come with a financial penalty, the domain owner is owed this respect.

Russian car cam company guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

by — Policy & Law 5 Comments

Company wanted .com domain to match its .ru website.

Screenshot of the website CarCam.ru

The owner of CarCam.ru tried to get the domain CarCam.com but was instead found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

A Russian electronics seller known for its car cameras has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking by a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panelist.

Limited Liability Company AV 808, which uses the domain name CarCam.ru, filed a cybersquatting dispute against the domain name CarCam.com.

The owner of CarCam.com registered the domain in 1996, well before the Russian company existed. The Russian company tried to buy the domain and filed the cybersquatting dispute under UDRP after its purchase attempts were rebuffed. In other words, it was a classic “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking.

In finding that the case was brought in abuse of the cybersquatting policy, WIPO panelist Marilena Comanescu determined that:

the Complainant should have appreciated that establishing registration and use in bad faith in respect of a domain name which had first been registered seventeen years ago was likely to involve difficult considerations.