TRTL.COM

 
 


Knew or Should Have Known



 
 

UDRP cases where complainants, or more often lawyers representing complainants, "knew or should have known" that their case was doomed to fail but still went ahead, getting their clients branded as Reverse Domain Name Hijackers in the process.

There are many cases where complainants, represented by lawyers, embark on unwinnable cases, that you have to wonder if these lawyers actively encourage their clients to file UDRP cases that are doomed to fail or simply do not discourage them. Maybe it's a case of the lawyers' ineptitude or maybe it is simply just the desire to rack up billing fees from their clients. Who knows?

As mentioned in the article The Hidden Perils of Filing a Baseless UDRP Complaint:

Complainant Counsel's Role:

The complainant's attorney generally bears responsibility for filing a complaint that results in RDNH, as the client relies on his or her legal advice and agreement to file on a client's behalf.

Here are just some cases:


 
 
 
 

Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited
WIPO Case No. D2016-0335
.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Coolside Limited (distributors of the trtl travel pillow) used Megan Briggs & Colin Hulme of Scottish law firm Burness Paull as their legal counsel.

In this UDRP case Get On The Web Limited’s registration of the disputed domain name predated by 16 years the creation and first use of the Coolside Limited’s trademark.

The panelists' concluding paragraph sums up by saying:

"In light of the foregoing, this Panel concludes that “the complainant in fact knew or clearly should have known at the time that it filed the complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the UDRP – bad faith in registration and use."

 

 
 
 
 

Knud Jepsen A/S v. Rick Schwartz, Virtual Dates Inc
WIPO Case No. D2017-0679
The complainant was represented by Patrade A/S, Denmark.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name queen.com was registered in 1997.
.....the Complainant only obtained a US trademark registration in 2015, 18 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration.

The Complainant has failed by a large margin. In the Panel’s opinion, the Complainant knew or at least should have known that it could not prove one of the essential UDRP elements.

See News Stories: Rick Schwartz gets RDNH win on Queen.com

and Five reasons why Rick Schwartz won the Queen.com UDRP with RDNH

and Queen.com UDRP: Queen.dk & Frands Jepsen are Reverse Domain Hijackers

and Rick Schwartz takes the Queen.com UDRP up another notch

and UDRP Filed Against Queen.com Owned by “Domain King” (Updated)

and Queen.com Hijacking by Frands Jepsen of Knud Jepsen, Denmark, Foiled by WIPO

and Queen.com, Home of Domain Hijacker Frands Jepsen

and After Failed Attempt to Hijack a Generic Domain Denmark's Queen Flowers Has to Deal With the Wrath of Rick Schwartz

What was up with lawyer Marie Lykke Kristiansen of Danish lawfirm Patrade A/S?
Didn't she read the UDRP requirements/rules? Didn't she spend a few minutes googling "Rick Schwarz" to find he was no walkover? Clearly not!

 
 
 
 

New Forests Asset Management Pty Limited v. Kerry Schorsch, Global Advertizing, LLC
WIPO Case No. D2015-1415 .
The complainaint was represented by Clayton Utz Solicitors, Australia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

"In the case at hand, the Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by a Counsel who knew or should have known, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, that it could not prove at least one of the essential elements required by the Policy, namely the Respondent’s bad faith registration, as the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates the creation and first use of the Complainant’s trademark."

See News Stories: New Forests Asset Management is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

and NewForests.com : Geo domain used in marketing salvaged from UDRP

and Owner of NewForests.com.au Found Guilty Of Reverse Domain Hijacking on 16 Yr Old .Com


 
 
 
 

Tarheel Take-Out, LLC v. Versimedia, Inc.
WIPO Case No. D2012-1668
.
The complainant was represented internally.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

“[A] finding of [RDNH] is warranted if the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy. [. . .] [S]uch a finding is particularly appropriate where the Respondent’s registration of the domain name predates the very creation of the Complainant’s trademark..

See News Stories: North Carolina food delivery service files UDRP against Takeout.com

and Takeout.com Wins UDRP & Gets A Finding Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


 
 
 
 

FPT Industrie S.p.a. and REM Industrie S.r.l. v. HugeDomains.Com
WIPO Case No. D2017-0842 .
The complainant was represented by Brioschi IP, Italy.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Complainants’ representatives should have known that the Complainants could not establish the required elements under the Policy.

See News Story HugeDomains gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking win

 
 
 
 

Emerton v. Peng Goh, Service Pro
WIPO Case No. D2016-0851 .
The complainant was represented by Gevers, Belgium.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

In particular, the Respondent notes that the Complainant and its experienced counsel should have known that the Complaint could not succeed in circumstances that the disputed domain name was registered many years prior to the commencement of the Complainant's business and first use and registration of its trade mark.

See News Story French consulting firm tried to reverse hijack domain name

 
 
 
 

Vortal Group, Inc. v. Digital Transport c/o Kent Smith
NAF Case No. FA0312000222968 .
The complainant was represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better.

and

The claim for reverse domain name hijacking is granted, because filing a Complaint which one knows or should have known would fail based upon the admissions of Complainant can be interpreted as harassing per se and should be discouraged.

 

 
 
 
 

Normann Copenhagen ApS v. Peter Normann
WIPO Case No. D2017-0829
The complainant by represented by DLA Piper, Denmark.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Panel considers that the Complainant, who is represented by counsel, upon proper examination of the Policy and its application in a case like this should have realized that the Complaint could not succeed as the Respondent's family name is Normann, as the disputed domain name was registered three years prior to the foundation of the Complainant and more than ten years before the first recorded filing of a trademark application of the Complainant's mark.

 

See News Story: Normann.com : Reverse Domain Hijacking decision for unjust UDRP


 
 
 
 

Airtango AG v. Privacydotlink Customer 2290723 / Gustavo Winchester
Case No. D2017-2095 .
Complainant was represented by Dr. Meyer-Dulheuer & Partners LLP, Germany.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Complainant and its advisers should have appreciated from the very outset, and particularly in light of the cases cited in the Complaint and quoted above, that the Complaint was doomed to fail for failure to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Domain Name was registered with the Complainant in mind. Contrary to the Complainant's statement that "It is of no importance that the trade marks have been registered after the registration of the Domain Name", the fact that the Domain Name was registered fourteen years before the Complainant and its trade mark rights saw the light of day had to be of crucial importance (and should have been seen to be of crucial importance) to the outcome of this case.

See News Story: 2 more RDNH: Airtango and Laboratorios del Dr. Esteve

 



 
 
 
 

Technologies Sensopia Inc. v. BLUE NOVA INC.
NAF Case No. FA1704001725217

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Complainant knew or should have known when it filed this case that it could not possibly prove bad faith registration, since Respondent registered the Domain Name seven years before Complainant began using its MAGICPLAN mark.  It knew or should have known that its renewal/re-registration argument was universally discredited and would not be accepted by any Panel.  It knew or should have known that it would have to prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail. 

See News Stories MagicPlan app maker is a reverse domain name hijacker
and RDNH Finding on MagicPlan.com UDRP

 

 
 
 
 

AUSACORP, S.L v. Andrew David Dawson
WIPO Case No. D2018-1772
The complainant was represented by Herrero & Asociados, Spain.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Given that the domain appears to have been registered before the brand existed, the domain couldn’t have been registered in bad faith

...... it is not possible for the Respondent to have known of the Complainant at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered as the Complainant’s “Excelway” business did not exist. In these circumstances, the basis on which to find that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith are highly limited. The Complainant must have known this.

See News Story AUSACORP, S.L. hit for reverse domain name hijacking



 
 
 
 

PLUG & Play, LLC v. Matt Morris
WIPO Case No. D2018-2385
The complainant was represented by Law Office of Heather Norton, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent established use of the domain as early as in 2002, while the Complainant claimed mark use in 2006, with a registered mark from 2012.
The key issue was 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.

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.....

See News Story: It’s Reverse Domain Name Hijacking time for PLUG & Play, LLC of Sunnyvale, California, after a failed attempt at wrestling away PlugAndPlay.com via the UDRP process.

and Company tries to hijack PlugandPlay.com domain name



 
 
 
 

UBUX Pty Ltd. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jeffrey DeWit, Revasser Ventures LLC
WIPO Case No. D2018-2290

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The WIPO panelist pointed out that there is no way that the Respondent would have known 14 years prior, that UBUX would be used by the Complainant and denied the Complainant’s request for a domain transfer.

Not only could the Respondent not have been aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name in 2004, there is no evidence that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant at the time of commencement of this proceeding.

If anything, this Complaint was brought in bad faith as an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking. The Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

See News Story: UBUX .com Registrant wins UDRP at the WIPO with legal representation

 

 
 
 
 

Proto Software, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc/PROTO.COM
WIPO Case No. D2006-0905
The complainant was represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by Counsel who even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its’ application in this area should have appreciated that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondent’s domain name had been registered three years prior to filing a trademark application or actual use of the mark. Based on the Complainant’s own submissions it is clear that it was aware of the Respondent’s domain name since 2004 and prior to the date on which it began using the mark in its sales and marketing activities.


 
 
 
 

Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online advice.
WIPO Case No. D2003-0297
The complainant was represented by Clifford Chance, LLP of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

In the view of a majority of the Panel, the Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith. The majority therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking.



 
 
 
 

RoofPro, LLC v. Privacydotlink Customer 774656 / Blue Nova Inc.
WIPO Case No. D2018-0883
The complainant was represented by Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name 22 months prior to the adoption of the business name RoofPro by the Complainant.

In the absence of extraordinary facts (such as the misappropriation of nascent trademark rights announced but not yet launched) the chronology itself presents a compelling barrier against a finding of bad faith, which should have been obvious to the Complainant and its attorney. On this basis alone, this Complaint ought never to have been launched.

See News Stories: RoofPro .com UDRP decision : It’s Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

and Maryland Roofing Company Attempts Reverse Domain Name and Fails

and Maryland roofing company attempts reverse domain name hijacking


 
 
 
 

Hakoba Lifestyle Limited v. Mukesh Shah
WIPO Case No. D2017-0675
The complainant was represented by Vishal Rajkumar Sekhani, India.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The only registered trade mark asserted by the Complainant was issued in 2015, 17 years after registration of the disputed domain name <hakoba.com>.

In particular, the Complaint has failed by a large and somewhat foreseeable margin; in the Panel’s opinion, the Complainant knew or at least should have known that it could not prove one or more of the essential UDRP elements.

See News Stories: Indian sarees : RDNH finding in Hakoba.com UDRP

and Reverse domain name hijacking in Hakoba Saree case


 
 
 
 

Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and Charter Communications Operating LLC v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Sheri K Corwin
WIPO Case No. D2017-0040
The complainant was represented by Loeb & Loeb, LLP, US.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Complainants should have known that Respondent’s original use of the disputed domain name in the manner outlined above was likely to prove fatal to their prospects in this proceeding. Complainants’ reliance on the “update date” as the date of Respondent’s renewal was fundamentally wrong. The Panel might overlook this mistake were it not the primary pillar of Complainants’ bad faith contention, causing the Panel concern that Complainants knew or should have known that they had built their case on an erroneous factual premise.

See News Stories: MySpectrumNews.com : Charter Communications guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

and Wow: Spectrum (Charter) is a reverse domain name hijacker

and Charter found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking


 
 
 
 

Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess? Inc. v. The Web Group, District of Columbia, USA.
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1802001770358
The complainant was represented by Gary J. Nelson of Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, California, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Complaint provides no evidence of bad faith registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name directed towards or “targeting” Complainants, or either of them. The Panel finds that Complainants knew or should have known that they would be unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <g81.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 

See News Stories: Apparel maker, Guess, loses G81 .com UDRP with RDNH finding

and Guess what? Clothing company GUESS is a reverse domain name hijacker


 
 
 
 

GVE Global Vision Inc. v. SDB Organisation Limited
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1804001783819
The complainant was represented by Legal Logik Inc., Quebec, Canada.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Complainant does not dispute Respondent’s domain name was registered more than 20 years before it registered its mark, and prior to Complainant’s registration of its own domain name. The Panel notes that since Respondent’s registration of the <globalvision.com> domain name predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the GLOBAL VISION mark, Complainant generally cannot prove registration in bad faith....

The Panel here finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the globalvision.com domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel thus concludes that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

See News Stories: RDNH Finding in GlobalVision.com UDRP

and Canadian company GVE Global Vision Inc tries reverse domain name hijacking



 
 
 
 

Prime Pictures LLC v. DigiMedia.com L.P.
WIPO No. D2010-1877
The complainant was represented byLaw offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”).

Complaint denied with RDNH.

In the present case, the Complaint correctly identified that the Domain Name was registered in 1998. Given that the earliest date of any registration or use of the mark relied upon in the Complaint was in 2005, the registration of the Domain Name could not have been in bad faith on any interpretation of the facts and cases cited in the Complaint.

The Complainant is represented in this proceeding by legal counsel who has evidently examined the UDRP and a number of cases decided under it, which are cited in the Complaint. Any reasonable investigation would have revealed that there was a fundamental weakness in the Complainant’s case, in that there was no basis in the Complaint and cases cited therein for alleging that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.

See News Stories: CinemaCity.com Gets A Reverse Hijacking UDRP Ruling

and WIPO panel finds complaint against DigiMedia.com was brought in bad faith


 
 
 
 

1 Model Management, LLC. v. L.A.S. Inc., Latifa Aadess, 1 Models LLC
WIPO No. D2008-1173
The complainant was represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”).

Complaint denied with RDNH.

When, as here, the face of the complaint includes facts that demonstrate no likelihood of success, the respondent is entitled to a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The case for such a finding is especially compelling here given Complainant's almost total lack of proof on any Policy element 2 and Complainant's inaction for five years. Complainant is represented by counsel and should be aware of the Policy's requirements and Policy precedent.

 

 
 
 
 

Pet Life LLC v. ROBERT RIESS / blue streak marketing llc
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1810001810870
The complainant was represented by Ezra Sutton, New Jersey, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered its <petlife.com> domain name in 2003, well prior to Complainant’s November 3, 2017 filing of its application to register its PET LIFE mark with the USPTO. Additionally, Complainant’s USPTO registration states that the earliest use of the PET LIFE mark in commerce was November 20, 2008.

Given PET LIFE’s trademark registration date and first use in commerce date being years after Respondent’s registration of <petlife.com>, Complainant -- who is represented by competent counsel -- knew or should have known at the time it filed the instant complaint that it would be unable to prove each of the three elements of Policy ¶ 4(a) necessary to prevail.

See News Stories: Reverse domain name hijacking in PetLife.com case

and PetLife.com : A classic case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


 
 
 
 

Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Mike Glisson
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA0403000250232
The complainant was represented by James G. Munisteri, of Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP. Houston, Texas.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Specifically, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 23, 1999. Yet, the earliest date which the Complainant is entitled as its first use date, i.e., the earliest date, which it specifically claims that its federal trademark rights began is October 29, 2001 ‑‑ some 2 1/2 years later.

Hence, prior to filing the Complaint, the Complainant knew, based on irrefutable facts then known to it, or, at the very least and under the specific facts here, should have known that the Respondent's rights in the disputed domain name were then superior to the Complainant's.  Yet, in spite of this knowledge, the Complainant persisted and intentionally filed its Complaint.

 
 
 
 

Vulf Records LLC v. Domain Admin / This Domain is For Sale / HugeDomains.com
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1802001771089
The complainant was represented byJack Stratton of VULF RECORDS LLC, Wyoming, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the disputed domain in 2005 whereas Complainant has offered no evidence that it obtained any trademark rights until its federal registration for the VULF mark more than twelve years later (shortly before filing its Complaint).

Even though Complainant appears to be self-represented, he should have recognized that a domain name registered years before the Complainant even claims to have begun using the mark could not possibly have been registered in a bad faith effort to exploit the Complainant’s mark.

The Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the <vulf.com> domain name, let alone that Respondent had registered and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

See News Story: HugeDomains wins VULF .com UDRP with RDNH finding


 
 

Platterz Inc. v. Andrew Melcher
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1705001729887
The complainant was represented byMay M. Cheng of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Canada.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the Domain Name in 2008, seven years before Complainant was organized as a business entity and seven years before it applied to register its alleged mark. 

Complainant and its counsel knew or should have known when they filed this case that Complainant could not possibly prove bad faith registration, since Respondent registered the Domain Name seven years before Complainant began using its PLATTERZ mark.  Complainant and its counsel knew or should have known that the renewal/re-registration argument was universally discredited and would not be accepted by any Panel.

See News Story: Another day, two more RDNH domain cases

 
 
 
 

John Ode d/ba ODE and ODE - Optimum Digital Enterprises v. Intership Limited
WIPO No. D2001-0074
The complainant was represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”).

Complaint denied with RDNH.

the Complainant did not begin using its trade marks until May 28, 2000, more than three years after the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and only uses its mark in Alaska

Our view is that Complainant has not proved bad faith registration, and we have decided the case principally on that basis. We further find that the complaint was brought in bad faith, based on the fact that Complainant knew when he filed the complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name predated his own trademark rights.

 

 
 
 
 

Clearly Agile, Inc. v. Jonathan Jenkins, Clearly Agile, Corp
WIPO No. D2018-2087
The complainant was represented by Trenam Kemker, United States

Complaint denied with RDNH.

In any event, it is undisputed that the Respondent chose its name and established its business in 2012, two years before the Complainant was established, and that the Respondent created the corresponding Domain Name in January 2014, more than half a year before the Complainant was established and more than two years before the Complainant obtained its first trademark registration.

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 was registered before the Complainant business was even formed, and the Respondent already had its own established business with a corresponding name.

 
 
 
 

Pilot Fitness, LLC v. Max Wettstein / Max Wettstein Fitness
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1808001799942
The complainant was represented by Lauren Dils, California, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

That is so because the domain name was registered on March 21, 2012 which was before the trademark was registered on June 3, 2014 and actually before the trademark was filed, October 22, 2013.

The same can be said of the present case as Complainant must have known of the date of its own Incorporation and when it applied for and was granted its trademark and must thus have known that it could not prove either that Respondent had no right to or interest in the domain name, or that Respondent had registered or used the domain name in bad faith.

See News Story: Pilot Fitness, LLC tried reverse domain name hijacking

 

 
 
 
 

Compare Ninja Ltd. v. Paul Nilas
WIPO No. D2018-0981
The complainant was represented by represented by Assaf Cohen Sidon, Israel.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

At the time of registration of the disputed domain name in the name of the Respondent on April 29, 2004, and for a decade thereafter, the Complainant evidently did not exist,..

In this instance, the Complainant ought to have recognised, under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to filing the Complaint, that under Policy precedent its Complaint was doomed to fail under at least one of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.

See News Stories: Compare Ninja Ltd. makes egregious reverse domain name hijacking attempt

and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on TicketCompare.com UDRP

 

 
 
 
 

ILQ Australia Pty Ltd v. Gidman, John
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1806001790689
The complainant was represented byJames O'Neill of ILQ Australia Pty Ltd, Australia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Panel is in agreement with Respondent and finds, on any construction of the facts, that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove trademark rights.

See News Stories: ILQ Australia Pty Ltd is a reverse domain name hijacker

and FairMarkets.com UDRP decision: It's Reverse Domain Name


 
 
 
 

Mechoshade Systems, LLC v. DNS Admin / Mecho Investments
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1805001784649
The complainant was represented by Ryan D. Ricks of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

However, Respondent is correct that Complainant’s allegations are so weak that Complainant must have known – and at the minimum should have known – that its Complaint had no chance whatsoever of success. On its face, the Complaint was woefully deficient.  Its allegations of bad faith were themselves insufficient, and even in the absence of a Response, would have led to the rejection of this Complaint.

See News Stories: Mechoshade busted for reverse domain name hijacking.

 

 
 
 
 

Verdant Services, Inc. v. Michael Sheikh, VRDT Corporation
WIPO No. D2018-0856
The complainant was represented by represented Carstens & Cahoon, LLP, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Complaint was also legally deficient to the extent it was essentially arguing for retroactive bad faith, a concept that has firmly been rejected as set out in the WIPO Overview 3.0 .

These are facts that should have been readily apparent to Complainant...

See News Story: Another day that ends in Y, another reverse domain name hijacking


 
 
 
 

iCard AD v. Yongchang Zhang, Zhangyongchang
WIPO No. D2018-0151
The complainant was represented by represented /c law, Luxembourg.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

....the disputed domain name was registered several years before the Complainant commenced using the LEUPAY Trade Mark, and several years before the Complainant obtained its registrations for the LEUPAY Trade Mark....

(i) The Complainant is represented and should be held to a higher standard than an unrepresented complainant

(ii) The disputed domain name was registered well before the Complainant obtained relevant trade mark rights ...

(v) The Complainant’s representatives have unreasonably ignored established Policy precedent set out in WIPO Overview 3.0, in particular in seeking to assert “retroactive” bad faith registration; and ...

See News Story: LeuPay company tries to hijack domain rather than pay for it

 
 
 
 

Robert Bosch GmbH v. Domain Admin, Tucows.com Co
WIPO No. D2017-2549
The complainant was represented by represented by /c law, Luxembourg.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

In the view of the Panel this is a Complaint which should never have been brought. The Complainant should have appreciated that the Disputed Domain Name was registered over 20 years ago and that the manner in which it had been used over that time period was likely to require careful consideration. Had it considered that usage properly it should have realised that it had been used for a bona fide email service offering email addresses for use by persons with the surname "bosch". It should then have realised there was no proper basis for this Complaint. Had it at this point been in any doubt, some research of previous UDRP decisions should have led it to conclude this was a case without any real prospects of success.

See News Story: Tucows gets RDNH ruling against Bosch after sloppy UDRP filing

 

 
 
 
 

De Lage Landen International B.V. v. Steve Thomas
WIPO No. D2017-2045
The complainant was represented by represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 1995. As identified above the Complainant’s registered rights in the letters “DLL” as a word mark date from 2007, long after the Disputed Domain Name was registered.

In the view of the Panel this is a complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant should have appreciated that establishing registration and use in bad faith in respect of a domain name which had first been registered many years previously and which was a three-letter acronym was likely to involve difficult considerations.

It ought to have been apparent to the Complainant or its advisers that its case to have rights in the term “DLL” as at the date the Disputed Domain Name was registered was (on the evidence presented to the Panel) non-existent, and it should then either have sought further and better evidence or decided not to proceed with the Complaint.

See News Story: Abusive UDRP Complaint for DLL.COM Denied

 

 
 
 
 

EBSCO Industries, Inc. v. WebMagic Staff / WebMagic Ventures, LLC
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1703001722095
The complainant was represented by Wanda Dimon, Alabama, United States of America.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

...the fact is that the Domain Name was registered 20 years ago and 10 years before Complainant’s Mark came into existence. That, in and of itself, is sufficient to deny any possible suggestion of bad faith on Respondent’s part.

The Panel infers that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

See News Story: Novelist.com Complainant gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking stain

 
 
 
 

MarketScore Inc. v. comScore, Inc
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1611001704584
The complainant was represented by Mark Fedchyshyn, Canada.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Panel believes that Complainant should have known, based upon prior UDRP rulings, that it had absolutely no chance to prevail as to Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and (iii).

Clearly, if Complainant did not enter into business until 2013, no UDRP panel would find that a disputed domain name registered in 1999 was registered in bad faith with respect to Complainant.

See News Story: comScore gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking win

 
 
 
 

WorldClaim Global Claims Management v. Bishop, Atticus / Bishop
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1609001694577

Complaint denied with RDNH.


In the Panel`s opinion, after a simple comparison of dates it must have been evident to Complainant that Respondent had registered the disputed domain name over five years before the filing of the application for the WORLDCLAIM service mark, and also before the date of first use and first use in commerce of the mark, as stated by the registrant of this mark.

In other words, Complainant must have been aware that Respondent could not have had the WORLDCLAIM mark in mind at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and therefore, that Respondent had not registered the disputed domain name in bad faith

See News Story: WorldClaim.com : Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding in UDRP for 17 year old domain.

 
 
 
 

Skyline Communications NV v. WebMagic Staff, WebMagic Ventures LLCs
WIPO No. D2016-1667
The complainant was represented internally.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 13, 1996. The Complainant applied for the trademark DATAMINER in the Benelux registry on September 21, 2015. The trademark registration was granted on July 12, 2016.

Therefore, in this case, the disputed domain name was not registered in bad faith because at the time of registration of the domain name the Respondent could not have been aware of the Complainant's trademark. It would be logically impossible for the Respondent to have acted in bad faith with respect to rights that did not exist at the time.

In the view of the Panel this is a complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant and its lawyer should have appreciated that establishing registration and use in bad faith in respect of a domain name which had first been registered nearly two decades ago was likely to involve difficult considerations. The Complainant appears to have ignored any such considerations. The Complainant should have known that there was no case under the third requirement of the Policy, due to the lack of any use in bad faith of the disputed domain name.

See News Stories: Owner of DataMiner.co nailed for reverse domain name hijacking over DataMiner.com

and DataMiner.com : 20 year old domain saved in UDRP with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding

 
 
 
 

GWG Holdings, Inc. v. Jeff Burgar, Alberta Hot Rods
WIPO No. D2016-1420
The complainant was represented internally.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

..the Respondent registered the disputed domain name some eleven years before the Complainant was incorporated, making it impossible for the Respondent to have known of the Complainant or to have been motivated by bad faith towards a non-existent company when it registered the disputed domain name.

The Panel’s conclusion therefore is that the Complainant was motivated by making a claim that it knew or should have known after reasonable inquiries was baseless and that, in making the claim, it could not succeed.

See News Story: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in GWG.com case


 
 
 
 

Whispering Smith Limited v. Domain Administrator, Tfourh, LLC
WIPO No. D2016-1175
The complainant was represented by Enrique Antonio Delgado Carravilla, Spain.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Panel finds that the Complainant in fact knew or at least should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the UDRP, namely is very clear that Respondent registered the Domain Name many years before Complainant filed and registered the Trademark.

See News Stories: Fashion Company Brave Soul is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

and BraveSoul.com Brave Enough to Win WIPO Arbitration


 
 
 
 

Karma International, LLC v. David Malaxos
National Arbitration Forum Case No. FA1812001822198
The complainant was represented by Kristin Kosinski of Cislo & Thomas LLP, California, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

  • Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 28, 1994
  • Complainant uses the name KARMA for a private membership organization and filed trademark application Serial No. 88/124,089 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on September 19, 2018 to register that name.

Further, that Complainant knew that Respondent registered the disputed domain name well before Complainant came in being

The Panel is in agreement with Respondent’s submissions and finds, on any construction of the facts, that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove its Complaint.

See News Stories: Bad Karma: Reverse domain name hijacking in Karma.com case

and Karma.com : Baseless UDRP ends in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding


 
 
 
 

.



 
     
     
  Return to www.TRTL.com homepage.