Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff

Domain Name Industry News and Website Stuff

Featured Domains

Lack of disclosure leads to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Mexican resort operator failed to disclose business relationship with domain owner.

Trouble in Paradise.

The operators of two Mexican resorts–Golden Parnassus Paradise of the Gods and Great Parnassus Paradise of the Gods–have been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) in a recent cybersquatting complaint.

The resorts filed UDRPs against the domains GoldenParnassusCancun.com and GreatParnassusCancun.com. The domains are owned by a company in Florida that wholesales vacation packages to travel agencies.

The UDRP filings missed several critical details and failed to disclose a 10+ year relationship between the complainants and the domain owner. It turns out that the Florida company has a long-running business deal to wholesale vacation packages to the resorts. It has even received the resort owner’s approval for changes to websites on the domains at issue.

Although the domain owner didn’t ask for a finding of RDNH, the panel considered it anyway and determined that the filing was made in bad faith:

After reviewing all the evidence, the Panel has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has failed to disclose a number of material facts, including the existence of the long standing business relationship between the parties and the specific facts recited in this decision at paragraph 6.B, which were critical to the Panel’s finding that Respondent holds legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain names, and which were obviously known to the Complainants before they began these proceedings. In these circumstances, the filing of the Complaint represents an abuse of process which the Panel finds entirely unacceptable. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

Share3
Share2
+1
Email
Shares 20

See, now here’s a good non-response UDRP decision

by — Policy & Law 2 Comments

Panelist correctly denies complaint despite no response from domain name owner.

Yesterday I wrote about a a no good, very bad UDRP decision in which the domain owner didn’t respond but the panelist still shouldn’t have awarded the domain name to the complainant, Virgin.

Today comes a World Intellectual Property Organization decision with a non-response in which the panelist correctly denied the complaint.

Opus Group AB of Sweden filed the case against Opus Group LLC of New York.

We don’t know much about the domain owner, which didn’t respond to the dispute. But we do know that its name in Whois is Opus Group LLC, and Opus Group AB didn’t provide any evidence that this isn’t the actual registrant’s name.

That needed to be addressed because a company named Opus Group LLC would presumably have rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name OpusGroup.com.

Panelist Ian Lowe called the complainant on this. He also determined:

…the Panel considers that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate on any view that the Respondent is likely to have had the Complainant and its rights in any relevant trademark in mind at the time it registered the Domain Name, and that the Complainant has therefore failed to establish that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.

It’s easy for a panelist to rubber stamp a complaint in which the domain owner doesn’t respond. Kudos to Ian Lowe for making the right decision in this case.

(The complainant also lost a case for Opus.group that is owned by a different group.)

Share
Share
+1
Email
Shares 13

Panelist makes right call in Zeca.com case

by — Policy & Law 1 Comment

Panelist questions bad faith claim despite no response from domain name owner.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has correctly denied a UDRP filing for Zeca.com, despite the complainant having a long-standing trademark for Zeca and the domain name owner not responding to the dispute.

Zeca.com is parked but doesn’t have ads for auto parts and auto mechanic accessories, which is the complainant’s business.

Panelist Ian Lowe questioned the evidence that the domain was registered in bad faith and that its owner, Domain Vault LLC, would have been familiar with the Italian company:

Accordingly, in the Panel’s view, the Complainant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant or such rights as it had in the Mark at the date of registration of the Domain Name. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Complaint to support an argument that by virtue of the use to which the Respondent has put the Domain Name it should be inferred that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

Zeca uses the domain name Zeca.it.

The domain owner is currently involved in a number of lawsuits.

Share
Share
+1
Email

Should Zions Bank have been hit with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking?

by — Policy & Law 12 Comments

Panelist questions Zions Bank’s decision to file a UDRP.

I want to give World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Tony Willoughby some credit.

He recently decided a case involving Zions Bank. He found in favor of a person in Pakistan who registered ZionVPN.com to start a VPN internet service.

It was quite clear what the registrant’s intention with the domain was, as he also registered ZionProxy.com (which was not part of the UDRP).

This was an overreach on the part of Zions Bank. It has won lots of UDRPs in the past, but those were for domains with Zions in them plus a financial term. Here, an innocent person used the dictionary term Zion and attached it to a non-financial term.

Willoughby did not find Zions Bank guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. But he did two things that should be applauded:

1. He considered reverse domain name hijacking even though the respondent didn’t ask for it. Yes, he declined to find it, but by considering it he has tacitly pointed out that Zions should be more careful before filing future cases. He also gets points for noting that panelists should consider RDNH even when it is not asked for.

2. He called out Zions Bank for what was likely boilerplate but invalid language in its complaint, and suggests that the bank should have tried to get more information before filing the complaint:

The Complainant asserts without any supporting evidence: “The Respondent is clearly trying to exploit the goodwill of Complainant and its trademarks by diverting customers of Complainant from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website for commercial gain or malicious purposes by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants trademarks”. While the Panel has some sympathy with the Complainant in that it had no information of any kind on the Respondent, the use of the word “clearly” in the above quote is the Panel’s view over the top. The Complainant might have been in a better position to make such a claim if it had attempted to approach the Respondent in advance by way of a pre-Complaint communication and then received an unhelpful response.

Share6
Share5
+12
Email
Shares 13

FIFA wins FIFA.net cybersquatting claim

by — Policy & Law 0 Comments

Soccer’s governing body gets FIFA.net to use along with its FIFA.com domain name.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has awarded soccer’s (sorry, football) governing body the domain name FIFA.net.

Fédération Internationale de Football Association, aka FIFA, filed a cybersquatting complaint against Winsum Wong of China.

Wong did not appear to be using the FIFA.net domain name.

While it’s possible that someone can own FIFA.net and not be cybersquatting, two things helped the panel award the domain name to the soccer group. First, Wong didn’t reply to the complaint. Second, he has been on the losing end in prior cybersquatting claims including obvious cases such as stationscasinos.com, homedepote.com and homededot.com.

Barring a lawsuit, the domain name will be transferred to FIFA within a couple weeks.

FIFA’s main website is at FIFA.com.

Share6
Share7
+11
Email
Shares 14