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 Domain Name TRTL.com
The complainant was represented by Burness Paull, Scotland.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name TRTL.com was registered in 2000.
The Complainant owns UK trademark TRTL registered in 2013. 13 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration

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 13 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."

See News stories:
John Berryhill gets another RDNH win. Company that owns TRTL.co.uk tried to get TRTL.com through UDRP
TRTL.com : After UDRP victory, domain owner lashes out at Complainant.
Domain Names Identical to Trademarks But No Likelihood of Confusion
Coolside Limited Of Glasgow Found Guilty Of Reverse Domain Hijacking

 
 
 
 

HSIL Limited, Somany Home Innovation Limited / SHIL Ltd., Brilloca Limited v. GOTW Hostmaster, Get On The Web Limited.
WIPO Case No. D2020-3416 Domain Names HSIL.com & SHIL.com
The complainant was represented by Manav Gupta, India.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The disputed domain names were both registered in 1999, many years before the first Complainant’s filing of the trademark applications for HSIL in India (in 2004) and the registration of the Complainants’ domain names containing HSIL (in 2005) as well as long before the first claimed use of the SHIL acronym by the second Complainant

The Complainants knew or should have known that the Respondent was not acting in bad faith, especially considering the disputed domain names were registered long before the Complainants acquired trademark rights for the acronym “hsil” and the asserted common law rights for the acronym “shil”.

See News stories:
RDNH on HSIL.com and SHIL.com UDRP
Reverse domain name hijacking in four letter domains case
Shil.com offers four points of advice to RDNH wannabes
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Attempted reverse domain name hijacking is an abuse of the administrative process

 
 
 
 

Inversiones MCN S.A.S. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC DomainsByProxy.com / Tamarak Marketing, Tamarak Capital
WIPO Case No. D2022-3219 Domain Name HABI.co
The complainant was represented by Holland & Knight LLC, Colombia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name HABI.co was registered December 12, 1997. The Respondent acquired the domain name in April 9, 2019.

The Complainant was established July 2019. The Complainant’s trademark registrations include HABI in logo format (the word HABI is located inside of a purple house) which is Colombian registration number 646241 filed on September 27, 2019. ...... The Complainant does not own a trademark registration for the word HABI alone.

"The Complainant, when filing the Complaint, was aware that the Respondent had filed a United States trademark application for HABI before the Complainant existed. Unless the Complainant presented evidence or submissions that this trademark application was a sham, which the Complainant did not, the Complainant should have known from this fact alone that its chances of success in this dispute were grim. But the Complainant proceeded with its Complaint.

See News Stories:
Colombian real estate company tries to reverse hijack domain name
Colombia-based Habi.co loses domain name arbitration case
Columbian Property Exchange Develops RDNH Ruling After Habi.com UDRP

 
 
 
 

Dagi Giyim San. Ve tic.a. ş. v. PrivacyDotLink Customer 4594967 / Domain Admin
WIPO Case No. D2022-2730 Domain Name DAGI.com
The complainant was represented by Grup Ofis Marka Patent Inc., Türkiye
Complaint denied with RDNH.

In the view of the Panel this is a complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant is professionally represented in this matter and, in the opinion of the Panel should have known 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 four-letter acronym was likely to involve difficult considerations. 

See News story: Turkish firm tries to reverse hijack dagi.com


 
 
 
 

Etrack LLC v. Edward Sturrock
WIPO Case No. D2021-3776 Domain Name BYFY.com
The complainant was represented by The Bobadilla Law Firm, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name BYFY.com was registered in 2004. Respondent acquired the domain name in 2013-2014.
The Complainant registered the mark in 2021.

"The preponderance of evidence indicates that Complainant filed this UDRP complaint out of frustration after a failed effort to purchase a domain name that it knew or should have known was not registered in bad faith."

See News Stories:
BYFY.com UDRP Results in RDNH
Byfy.com: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding
By-fy.com tries to reverse domain name hijack byfy.com

 
 
 
 

Klir Platform Europe Limited v. David Hendrix
Case No. 15008-UDRP Domain Name KLIR.com
The complainant was represented by Bill Mayo, Canada.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent obtained the KLIR.com domain name in a public auction concluded on April 30, 2016.
The Complainant was founded in 2014 named “Elm Consulting & Solutions Limited” and changed its name to “Klir Platform Europe Limited” in August 2018.

The Complainant and its legal representative had clear knowledge of lack of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use because the KLIR.com Domain Name was registered before the Complainant or any related entity acquired rights in the KLIR mark.

See News Stories:
Panel finds water utility compliance company Klir guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

 
 
 
 

Türkiye’nin Otomobili Girişim Grubu Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. The Office of George Gould
Case No. D2021-1949 Domain Name TOGG.com
The complainant was represented by Gün + Partners, Turkey.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent bought the togg.com domain name in 2003.
The Complainant was founded on June 28, 2018 with trademarks registered March 8, 2019.

The Panel notes that the Complainant has legal representation in this proceeding. The Complaint specified the creation date of the disputed domain name in 2003, which was 16 years before the earliest registrations of the Complainant’s trademarks in March 2019.

In the above circumstances, ...., the Complainant at best launched this proceeding without addressing the critical issue in the case (namely, potential later acquisition by the Respondent) and potentially knowing that it could not succeed in its Complaint under any reasonable interpretation of the Policy.

See News Stories:
RDNH Finding in TOGG.com UDRP
Domestic Automobile TOGG Lost Its Case for Internet Domain Name in the USA
Keeping a domain in bad faith? How about RDNH?

 
 
 
 

Wirecard AG v. Telepathy Inc., Development Services
WIPO Case No. D2015-0703 Domain Name BOON.com
The complainant was represented by Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP, Germany.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name BOON.com was registered in 1998.
The Complainant registered a trademark in 2014. 16 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration.

The Respondent did not choose, and could not have chosen, to register the Complainant's brand as a domain name in 1998, sixteen years prior to the launch of this brand.
The Complaint constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Complainant knew or ought to have known that its case was fatally weak and that it could not prove the essential elements required by the UDRP.

See News Stories:
Owned For At Least 14 Years Nat Cohen’s Telepathy Inc Hit With UDRP on Boon.com
Wirecard nailed for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
 

Feev Holding B.V. v. Firas Dabboussi, FeeV
WIPO Case No. D2019-2683 Domain Name FEEV.com
The complainant was represented by Mouritz Legal, Netherlands.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name FEEV.com was registered in 2002.
The Complainant owns Benelux trademark FEEV registered in 2019. 17 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration.

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 was likely to be impossible.

See News Story:
Cryptocurrency business tries to reverse hijack domain name

 
 
 
 

Thomas Wang v. Privacydotlink Customer 546843 / Blue Nova Inc.
WIPO Case No. D2018-1316 Domain Name YISH.com
The complainant was self represented.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name YISH.com was registered in 2001.
The Complainant filed an application to register "Yish" as a trademark in 2017 which was registered in 2018.

The length of time the disputed domain name was registered before the Complainant had any rights in his trademark means that the Complainant should certainly have appreciated that he had no prospects of establishing the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

See News Story:
Defunct app maker hit with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
 

Vudu, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / K Blacklock
WIPO Case No. D2019-2247 Domain Name VUDU.com
The complainant was represented by Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name VUDU.com was registered in 1999.
The Complainant did not exist until 2005, and by its own account the Complainant did not start using the VUDU mark until late 2007.

Even without glancing at the WIPO Overview 3.0, counsel for the Complainant should have recognized from the plain language of the Policy that at the time of registration the Respondent could not have been attacking a trademark that did not exist and was not in contemplation for years to come.

See News Story:
Walmart’s Vudu is a reverse domain name hijacker

 
 
 
 

IUNO Advokatpartnerselskab v. Angela Croom
WIPO Case No. D2011-0806 Domain Name IUNO.com
The complainant was represented by Anders Etgen Reitz, Denmark.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name IUNO.com was registered in 2000.
The Complainant (a Danish law firm) commenced business in early 2011 and registered a trademark in 2011.

On the evidence before the Panel, there was no IUNO trade mark in existence on February 9, 2000. Is the Complainant seriously suggesting that there was anything abusive about the registration at that date when there were nor relevant trade mark rights in contemplation (let alone existence) at that date?.....

In the view of this Panel, a represented complainant (and particularly a complainant in the position of this Complainant, a law firm) should be taken to have known and understood the Policy and should be taken to have known and desired the natural and probable consequences of its actions.....

In this case the Complainant knew or ought to have known that the bad faith allegations were baseless. 

See News Story:

Law Firm Found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking After Filing “Astonishing” Case

 
 
 
 

Law and Business Enterprises Worldwide S.L. v. Ann Labe
WIPO Case No. D2022-1040 Domain Name LABE.com
The complainant was represented by Labe Abogados, Spain.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name LABE.com was registered in June 9th 1998.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name over ten years before the Complainant (a Spanish law firm) was established and approximately twelve years prior to the registration of the Complainant’s LABE mark.

"..the Whois record shows that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name pre-dated the Complainant’s registration of its LABE mark by over ten years. This should have made it apparent to the Complainant that it was likely to encounter substantial, and likely insuperable, difficulties, in establishing, bad faith registration by the Respondent."

See News Stories:
Spanish firm tries to reverse domain name hijack labe.com
(Molon) Labe.com: Spanish law firm engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
 

RunSmart Online, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Intuit Inc.

Claim Number: FA2401002078063

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the Domain Name September 17, 1998.

In the UDRP filed against the domain runsmart.com the Respondent noted that since the domain was registered 10 years prior to the first use by Complainant of the RUNSMART mark, the domain could not have been adopted in bad faith since Respondent could not have know of a then nonexistent mark at the time of registration of its domain.

"The Panel finds that the disputed domain was registered long before Complainant claims rights in the trademark RUNSMART. In its complaint, the Complainant cites the 1998 registration of the disputed domain by Respondent. Thus, Complainant knew at the time that this dispute was instituted that it could not establish prior rights and that Respondent could not have acted in bad faith when it registered its domain."

See News Story:
Intuit wins reverse domain name hijacking charge
RunSmart.com: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding for 1998 domain registration

 
 
 
 

Viviendas Universales S.A.S. c. Miguel Garciaiviendas Universales S.A.S. c. Miguel Garcia
Caso No. D2023-4692
The complainant was represented by Distintivo Propiedad Intelectual, Colombia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the Domain Name December 17, 1999.

The domain owner registered the domain before Viviendas Universales S.A.S. existed, meaning it was impossible to show that the domain owner registered the domain to target the Complainant

"It appears that the Complainant, who had legal advice, attempted to opportunistically obtain the disputed domain name by any means, presenting baseless allegations that it knew or should have known would not succeed, thus harassing the Respondent, which leads this Expert to determine in this case an abuse of the administrative proceeding under the Policy by the Complainant."

See News Story:
Viviendas Universales S.A.S. tries to reverse hijack viviendas.com

 
 
 
 

Scentsational Shoppe, Inc. v. Jeffrey Potts, The Common Scents, Inc..
WIPO Case No D2023-3525
The complainant was represented by The Vanel Law Firm, P.C., United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the Domain Name January 17, 2016.
The Complainant has a registered trademark registered on June 8, 2018.

"Complainant is represented by counsel, who knew or should have known it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements of the Policy.

"Complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the complaint, including relevant facts on the website at the Domain Name. "

See News Story:
Stinky UDRP: Perfume-Oils.com registrant won with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding!

 
 
 
 

Zeroqode, Inc. v. George Novik.
NAF Case Number: FA2308002059302
The complainant was represented by David L Sterrett of Sterrett Law, Plc, Massachusetts, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Domain name was registered July 7 2015 and bought by the Respondent December 5 2022.
The Complainant claimed it had a trademark (without proof!) registered on June 14 2017.

"Regarding the registration, it must be highlighted that the domain name in dispute was first registered on July 7, 2015, that is, almost two years before the date Complainant claimed without proof to have first used the ZEROQODE trademark, (June 14, 2017). Although the Respondent purchased the domain name after the alleged common law trademark rights, its purchase cannot be understood as made in bad faith, since, as already explained, the term can be seen as merely descriptive of the products and services it provides through the domain name. "

"Panels have traditionally held parties represented by counsel to a higher standard especially when deciding whether to make a finding of RDNH (see Ideal Nutrition, LLC v. Khaled Alshahri / Khaled Group, LLC – Forum FA2306002048379). Bearing in mind that Complainant is being represented by a counsel, such should have known it could not succeed in this matter by not attaching any evidence to the case files, or by not even mentioning the elements provided by Paragraph 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy."

See News Story:
No-code development agency tries reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

Apnea Sciences Corporation v. Private Domain / Above Privac..
Claim Number: FA2310002065870
The complainant was represented by James Fallon of Apnea Sciences Corporation, California, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Domain name was registered April 6 1999 and bought by the Respondent May 15 2022.
The Complainant has a registered trademark registered January 7 2020.

"The Respondent did not register or “secure” the domain name in 1999. The evidence shows that the Respondent bought the domain name at an auction on May 15, 2022. Thus, it could not have kept the domain name inactive for 20 years from its registration in 1999 as it did not own it during that period and had no control over it. Accordingly, that period of inactivity for the domain name cannot be the basis for denying the Respondent a right or legitimate interest in the domain name."

"..... It should have known that if the domain name had not been used for nearly 20 years before the trademark was obtained, it would never be able to show that the registration and use of the domain name had been in bad faith."

See News Stories:
Another day, another incompetent cybersquatting case
Sleeprx.com UDRP: Domain investor won with a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Respondent Had Right to Buy Trademarked Term at Auction

 
 
 
 

IBA SA v. Ousmane Ba.
WIPO Case No D2023-3619
The complainant was represented by Sybarius, Belgium.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the Domain Name in 1995.
In 1995 the only relevant registered trademark the Complainant owned was in the form of the IBA
Benelux device trademark (which is now expired). There is no reason the Respondent should have known
of that trademark.


"In the view of the Panel this is a complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant is professionally represented in this matter and, in the opinion of the Panel should have appreciated that establishing registration and use in bad faith in respect of a domain name which had first been registered nearly thirty years ago .......this was a case that had no reasonable prospects of success.

See News Stories:
IBA is no IBM
IBA.com: Another RDNH Finding on 3 Letter .com Domain Name
IBA.com: UDRP on aged domain ends with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision!

 
 
 
 

Cathleen Trigg-Jones v. Witold Stawarz.
WIPO Case No D2023-3258
The complainant was represented by The Vanel Law Firm, P.C., United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2009.
The Complainant has registered trademarks registered September 28, 2021.

"The Complainant is represented by counsel who should have appreciated that the Complaint
could not succeed
as to each of these three elements, given the Complainant’s lack of relevant trademark
rights and the registration and use of the disputed domain name years before the Complainant started using its IWOMAN trademark. In this situation, the Complainant must have known that it could not succeed, but nevertheless filed the Complaint."

See News Stories|:
iWoman.com UDRP ends with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision
iWoman.com dispute filed in bad faith

 
 
 
 

Leumas Residential, LLC v. Leumas Advisors LLC.
Case Number FA2306002048740
The complainant was represented by Reginald D. Samuel, Virginia, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 12, 2002.
The Complainant has a registered a trademark registered December 11, 2018.

".....the registration of the disputed domain name predates Complainant’s trademark registration by more than 15 years ........"

"The Panel also observes that Complainant filed its application for the LEUMAS mark about 10 years after this communication from the Respondent’s principal. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith "

See News Stories|:
Leumas vs. Leumas: RDNH decision for Leumas.com UDRP
Real estate company tries Plan B reverse domain name hijacking


 
 
 
 

Integrity Marketing Group, LLC v. Sunil Bheda.
Case Number FA2305002046327
The complainant was represented byAdam Solander of King & Spalding LLP, District of Columbia, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 1996.
The Complainant registered a trademark in 2023 citing 2016 as the date of first use.

"In the present matter, Complainant is not merely unsuccessful, but it clearly knew that the Disputed Domain Name was registered long before Complainant acquired trademark rights and as such could not establish bad faith conduct on the part of Respondent...."

See News Stories|:
Integrity.com: Sunil Bheda won the UDRP with a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Integrity.com UDRP Denied with RDNH
No integrity: integrity.com cybersquatting dispute is reverse domain name hijacking
A Simple Matter of Logic Saves Integrity

 
 
 
 

JoshCo Group, LLC d/b/a Veteran Benefits Guide v. Domain Administrator / DOT CORNER WEB SERVICES.
Case Number FA2305002046327
The complainant was represented by Timothy Getzoff of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the vbg.com domain name on June 24, 2001.
"In particular, the Panel’s study of the website shows that it is incorrect to assert, as the Complainant does, that it has used the term VBG as its trademark “since at least 2019.

..........
the evidence shows, the Respondent acquired the domain name well before the Complainant came into existence............

(a)   the proceeding was brought and pursued when there was no reasonable prospect of it succeeding, as it was always clear that the Complainant could not prove any of the 3 elements that it was required to prove;

(b)   this must have been apparent to the Complainant’s advisers;...

As a small side note: The Complainant represented by lawyer Timothy Getzoff of Holland & Hart LLP made the claim that "Respondent continued to renew the disputed domain name after Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and therefore retrospectively registered and used the domain name in bad faith. "
Had they not read The Rise and Fall of the UDRP Theory of ‘Retroactive Bad Faith’ ????

See News Story|:
VBG.com cybersquatting challenge was reverse domain name hijacking
VBG.com: Three letter .com UDRP gets slapped with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision

 
 
 
 

Rocket Lab USA, Inc. v. RocketLab Inc.
Case No FA2303002036243
The complainant was represented by Ronald H. Spuhler of McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd., US.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 2000.
The Complainant was only formed as a business in 2006.

"Complainant, who is represented by a lawyer, should have appreciated the weakness of its case in view of the fact that the rocketlab.com domain name was registered long before Complainant acquired trademark rights in the ROCKET LAB mark and many years before Complainant was founded."

See News Stories|:
RocketLab.com: Complainant found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Rocket ship company tries Plan B reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

Presonate Zrt. v. Abhijit Mhetr.
WIPO Case No D2023-1106
The complainant was represented by Széles Law Office, Hungary.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 2011.
The Complainant was only formed as a business in 2019.

"Given that the registration of the Domain Name predates the formation of the Complainant’s business and all of the Complainant’s trade mark registrations, and in the absence of any other evidence suggesting any targeting of the Complainant, there is no basis for claiming that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in 2011 with the Complainant in mind (who did not exist at the time)."

The Complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of the facts which were available to the Complainant prior to filing the Complaint; the conjunctive requirement is well-established, in it, and it was accordingly impossible for the Respondent to have registered theDomain Name with the Complainant’s mark in mind."

See News Stories|:
Presonate.com dispute ends in reverse domain name hijacking
Presonate.com: Domain portmanteau registrant wins UDRP with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding

 
 
 
 

Healthyr, LLC v. Jonathan Curd.
WIPO Case No D2023-1802
The complainant was represented by Burr& Forman LLP, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 2006.
Complainant alleges that it has used the HEALTHYR mark in commerce since at least September 21, 2022.

"However, the record shows that Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name in August 2006, seventeen years before Complainant first used the HEALTHYR mark. Therefore, Respondent could not have registered the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to profit from Complainant’s mark or to interfere with Complainant’s business."

Based on the record evidence, Complainant was well aware of Respondent’s ownership of and use of the
Disputed Domain Name on the same date it first used the HEALTHYR mark in United States commerce, and
before Complainant filed its trademark application for the same."


See News Stories|:
Healthyr, LLC tries reverse domain name hijacking
Health Testing Company Afflicted With RDNH Trying To Steal Healthyr.com

 
 
 
 

WebSec Holdings, B.V. v. Marty Martin, Adapt Partners.
WIPO Case No D2023-0813
The complainant was represented by Solace Law, United States of America.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent purchased the disputed domain name in 2016.
The Complainant filed its first trademark applications for WEBSEC in 2022.

"As indicated above, the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2016, several years before the Complainant was established in its present form ....

the Complainant, which is represented by a lawyer, should have appreciated the weakness of its case in view of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered well before the Complainant acquired trademark rights on WEBSEC."

See News Story|:
Websec.com UDRP ends with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
 

DNVB, Inc. d/b/a Thursday Boot Company v. Larry Angell, ZombieCorp LLC (aka Uncrate LLC).
WIPO Case No D2023-0532
The complainant was represented by Beard & Barks PLLC, United States..

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 2011.
The Complainant was founded in 2014.

"Respondent contends that Complainant’s actions in this case constitute RDNH, as Complainant, represented by counsel, knew or should have known that it would be unable to prove that Respondent had registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. The primary factor in support of this finding is that the Domain Name was registered approximately three years before Complainant’s trademark rights came into existence.....

Here, the Panel determines that a finding of RDNH against Complainant is proper. Complainant,
represented by counsel, brought its Complaint with clear knowledge that Respondent had registered theDomain Name long before Complainant and its trademarks existed
)."

See News Stories|:
Thursday.com UDRP: Thursday Boot Company got the RDNH boot
No surprise: WIPO kicks boot company to the curb in Thursday.com dispute

 
 
 
 

VGW Holdings Limited v. 신현두 (Hyundoo Shin).
WIPO Case No D2023-0345
The complainant was represented by Kiran Singh, Australia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name VGW.com was registered in 2002.
Complainant is the holder of a registered trademark registered on December 28, 2021

"Here, the disputed domain name was registered well before the Complainant acquired trademark rights or even came into existence, so it would have been impossible for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant and its mark. The Complainant should surely have known have that the Complaint could not succeed based on these facts, and proceeding with this Complaint can only be viewed as an attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name."

See News Stories|:
Owner of vgw.co tries to reverse hijack matching .com
VGW.com: UDRP panelist slaps Complainant with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding
Another Futile Three-Letter Domain Name Complaint Ends in Failure
Australian Holdings Company Bagged By RDNH Trying To Swipe VGW.com

 
 
 
 

Hale Law, P.A v. Roger Hale.
WIPO Case No D2023-0084
The complainant was represented by Maxey-Fisher, PLLC, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name gotohale.com was registered 10th June 2000.
Complainant is the holder of a registered trademark registered on December 28, 2021

"Respondent argues that Complainant fails here because Complainant admits that the domain name
was registered by Respondent in 2000, at least twenty years prior to Complainant’s first use of the claimed mark as set forth in Complainant’s registration for the GO TO HALE Mark
."

With the benefit of apparently experienced intellectual property advisors, Complainant should have been aware that, in these circumstances, its Complaint – at least as Amended – could not succeed.

See News Stories|:
Supplements company tries reverse domain name hijacking
Two lawyers file a UDRP and…It’s a reverse domain name hijacking case
GoToHale.com: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision
Respondent Pays Complainant’s Fee
Law Firm Slapped With RDNH Trying To Grab GoToHale.com

 
 
 
 

TicketSms s.r.l. and Mr Andrea Vitali v. Franklin Iziren.
WIPO Case No D2023-0442
The complainant was represented by Studio Legale Antonio Gallo, Italy.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain names ticketsms.com and ticketsms.net were registered in June 2009.
The Complainants started activities under the TICKETSMS trademark only in 2015 and the TICKETSMS trademark was registered in 2020.

"In the present case, the Complainants were well aware that the Respondent could not have known andtargeted them in 2009, when he registered the disputed domain names, because they had started activities under the TICKETSMS trademark only in 2015. The Complainants, being represented by counsel, must have understood that the only logical conclusion from this is that the Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under the Policy, and that the Complaint could not therefore succeed. Nevertheless, the Complainants proceeded with filing it."

See News Stories:
TicketSms s.r.l. attempts reverse domain name hijacking
Italian Ticket Service loses WIPO Case
UDRP Becomes Ticket To RDNH For Trying To Steal TicketSMS.com and .net

 
 
 
 

LAWCLOUD B.V. v. Wenjie Jiang.
WIPO Case No D2022-4908
The complainant was represented byAdvocatenkantoor Desdalex LLC, Belgium.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain lawcloud.com was registered in 2006 and acquired by the Respondent on October 19, 2016.
The Complainant was incorporated 2017 and registered a trademark May 31, 2022.

"The Panel concludes that the Complainant’s actions constitute Reverse Domain Name Hijacking since the Complainant, which is represented by counsel, should have appreciated the the fact that it could not succeed in demonstrating that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, as the disputed domain name was acquired a year before the Complainant came into existence and even longer before the Complainant’s trademark was registered."

See News Story:
LawCloud tries to upgrade its domain by reverse domain name hijacking
Panel Rains Down RDNH As Legal IT Firm Tries To Swipe LawCloud.com

 
 
 
 

Mundo Natural, Inc. v. Alexander Lerman d/b/a AL Enterprises.
WIPO Case No D2022-4958
The complainant was represented by Beléndez Law Offices, Puerto Rico.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name MundoNatural.com was registered in 2002.
The Complainant’s trademark was registered in 2022.

"... the Complainant is represented by counsel who should be familiar with the relevant aspects of UDRP practice. More specifically, in this case, there was essentially no evidence in support of the necessary facts, most notably facts relating to trademark rights arising pre-trademark registration. Similarly, the Complainant did not address how the disputed domain name was initially registered prior to any proven trademark rights.

See News Story:
MundoNatural.com: UDRP ends with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding

 
 
 
 

Cetin Family Tekstil Gida Pazarlama Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Tom Lamboo, Intron Spor.
WIPO Case No D2022-3960 Domain Name EXXE.com
The complainant was represented by Arnold & Siedsma B.V., Netherlands.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1998.
The Complainant states that it opened a physical store in Türkiye in 1997. However it provides no evidence of the operation of that store or its trading name at that time. The Complainant had no trademark registrations, or even applications, at
that time and no Internet presence.


"In the view of the Panel, the Complainant knew or ought to have known that it could not establish any
arguable case that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name in bad faith
...
."

See News Story:
Exxe.com: Turkish Complainant slapped with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding
Turkish Company Dressed In RDNH Attempting To Grab exxe.com

 
 
 
 

Ideal Nutrition, LLC v. Khaled Alshahri / Khaled Group,LLC.
Case No FA2306002048379
The complainant was represented by Michael Marcil of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, PA, Florida, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The disputed domain name idealnutrition.com was registered on October 30, 2002. 
The Complainant registered its Trade Mark on registered July 14, 2020.

".....
b) The Complainant did not have any trademark rights at the time the disputed domain name was registered. In fact, the disputed domain name was registered nearly 14 years before the Complainant alleged that it first used the Mark.
........
d)   Complainants represented by Counsel are held to a higher standard and as such should have known it could not succeed in this matter.  Moreover, Complainant relies on a discredited legal theory espoused in a few cases between 2009 and 2010 on “retroactive bad faith” which does not, and has never, represented the Consensus view of UDRP Panelists."

"Complainant’s counsel in this matter should have known that it was not able to demonstrate that the domain name was registered in bad fad faith because the domain name was registered by this Respondent more than 14 years prior to the existence of the Complainant".

See News Stories:
Pre-made meal company tries reverse domain name hijacking. Company went after domain registered 14 years before it existed.
IdealNutrition.com UDRP ends with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision.

 
 
 
 

Tox Pressotechnik GmbH & Co. KG v. TFourth LLC.
WIPO Case No D2022-3270
The complainant was represented by Otten, Roth, Dobler & Partner GmbH, Germany.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name TOX.com was registered in 2001.

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....

This is such a case. The three-letter Domain Name corresponds to a dictionary term and was registered more than 21 years ago.

See News Story:
Tox.com: German company found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
 

Mind Gym plc v. Intuition Publishing Limited.
WIPO Case No D2022-3598
The complainant was represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name mindgym.com was registered in 1996.

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....

In this case, the Domain Name was registered 26 years ago, a long delay for bringing a proceeding where the Complainant bears the ultimate burden of proof and must find persuasive evidence. Critically, the Domain Name was registered long before the Complainant acquired any trademark registrations and four years before the Complainant began doing business under the relevant name and claimed mark.

See News Stories:
Mind Gym plc tries to reverse hijack better name
MindGym.com: Brainless UDRP ends with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding

 
 
 
 

ProjectPay Pty Ltd. v. Rohit Sur
WIPO Case No. D2022-2900
The complainant was represented by Dentons Canada LLP, Canada.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name ProjectPay.com was registered by the Respondent June 27, 2001.

The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations for PROJECTPAY .... registered on May 29, 2017; .... registered on December 7, 2018; .... registered on May 11, 2022 ....July 30, 2019.

"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, it is very clear that the Respondent registered the Domain Name many years before the Complainant came into existence, filed and registered the Trademark."

See News Story:
ProjectPay.com UDRP: Time to pay with a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding
Ignoring well-established UDRP principles results in RDNH

 
 
 
 

Redgrass SA v. Domain Admin, HugeDomains.com
WIPO Case No. D2022-2433
The complainant was represented by Riccardo Ciullo, Spain.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent acquired the generic disputed domain name more than three years before the Complainant applied for its first trademark application.

"The Panel notes that the Complainant has legal representation in this proceeding. The Complaint suffers from a serious defect with respect to the timing of the accrual of the Complainant’s trademark rights. The Respondent gave the Complainant full notice of the timing of its acquisition of the disputed domain name and its position on the merits of this case over a year before the filing of the Complaint. The Complainant has sought to remedy this defect by reference to two company name registrations and evidence of later events when it knew, or should have known, that the Complaint could not succeed under any fair interpretation of the facts."

See News Story:

HugeDomains gets reverse domain name hijacking win

 
 
 
 

Kosmos Global Holding, S.L. v. Jewella Privacy - 00a3b, Jewella Privacy LLC Privacy ID# 924265 / Domain Manager, Orion Global Assets
WIPO Case No. D2022-2408
The complainant was represented by MERX IP, Spain.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name was registered April 4, 1998....

The Panel observes that based on undisputed evidence, the Respondent showed that it registered the Disputed Domain Name before the Complainant’s very existence.

"The Complainant is professionally represented in this matter and, in the opinion of the Panel, knew or ought to have known that it could not succeed as to the second and third element of the Policy for the reasons set out above."

See News Story:

Kosmos Global Holding, S.L. tries reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

GL Concepts, LLC d/b/a Goodlife v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Amitava Saha, Firstcry
WIPO Case No. D2022-0451
The complainant was represented by Ritholz Levy Fields LLP, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 24th 1998. The Complainant's trademark was registered in 2015 (seventeen years after the registration of the disputed domain name) and claimed a first use in commerce of December 28 1999.

“The Complainant is represented by counsel. It should have taken into account that the Respondent has been the owner of the disputed domain name for a long period of time, which started seventeen years before the registration of the Complainant’s GOODLIFE trademark and nearly a year before its claimed first use in commerce, and should have appreciated the established Policy precedent that where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent..."

See News Story:

GoodLife.com: UDRP ends with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision!

RDNH Finding without a Response to UDRP

 
 
 
 

Kaufman Realty and Auctions, LLC v. WEB REG / RARENAMES, INC.
NAF Case No. FA2207002006249
The complainant was represented by Andrew R. Burton, Ohio, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 9th 2005.
The Complainant's trademark was registered in 2021 and claimed a first use in commerce of 2011.

“.. Complainant has been represented by experienced legal counsel; when it filed its Complaint, Complainant must have known from available public records that Respondent had acquired its domain name long before Complainant could have established, by registration or otherwise, rights in the KAUFMAN AUCTIONS mark upon which it relies"

"The Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove … that … Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The most glaring evidence for this conclusion is that the Domain Name was registered … before Complainant’s trademark rights came into existence. It is logically impossible for the registration to have been made with the intent to infringe on trademark rights that did not yet exist. "

See News Story:

KaufmanAuctions.com UDRP leads to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision

 
 
 
 

Titmouse, Inc. v. Paul Blank
WIPO Case No. D2022-2208
The complainant was represented by Mandour & Associates, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 6th 1998.
The Complainant was founded in 2000. The Complainant's first trademark was registered on June 17th 2003.

“A finding of RDNH is warranted, however, 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. This is such a case. The Complaint entirely ignores the glaring difficulty that the Complainant must show bad faith in the registration of the Domain Name, which in this case preceded the existence of the Complainant itself as well as its registered marks. "

See News Story:

Animation studio Titmouse tries to reverse hijack titmouse.com

 
 
 
 

Electrosoft Services, Inc. v. TechOps / SyncPoint.
NAF Case No. FA2110001969515
The complainant was represented by Kevin J. Thomas and Jason D. Rosenberg (for purposes of the Complainant’s Additional Submission), Virginia, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 2000.
The Complainant failed in its Complaint to establish that it had common law rights in the term “Electrosoft” that predate the Respondent’s registration of the domain name.

Complainant’s counsel in this matter should have known that even if it could establish the common law rights of the Complainant in its Additional Submission, it could not have established that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.

See News Stories:

RDNH Finding in Electrosoft.com UDRP
Government contractor tries reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

Consensys Software Inc. v. Justin Pietroni, Netymology Ltd.
WIPO Case No. D2021-3337
The complainant was internally represented.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Domain Name was registered in January 2005.
The Complainant’s trade mark rights only arose in 2016 at the earliest

As the Complainant and its rights did not exist in 2005, the disputed domain name could not have been registered in bad faith. 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:

MetaMask tries reverse domain name hijacking

Metamask.com: Crypto wallet company is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

MetaMask.com: UDRP Denied with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
 

Smart Robotics B.V. v. Mary Anne Wehland
WIPO Case No. D2021-2259
The complainant was represented by Taylor Wessing N.V., Netherlands.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Domain Name was registered in 2009, nine years prior to the Complainant’s trade mark registration.

In this case the Complainant is represented by a law firm with a reputation in intellectual property and related matters. It is inconceivable to the Panel that the those responsible for the drafting of the Complaint could not have been well aware of the potentially insuperable problems caused by the fact that the Domain Name has a dictionary meaning and was registered years before the Complainant acquired any relevant trade mark rights; yet no attempt was made to address either of those issues. In consequence the Complaint was doomed from the outset.

The Complainant is legally represented by a law firm with expertise in the field and clearly knew or ought to have known that the Complaint was doomed to fail on both the second and third elements of the Policy.

See News Stories:
Smart Robotics B.V. tries reverse domain name hijacking
Tony Willoughby whacks Complainant with RDNH in Smart-Robotics.com UDRP

 
 
 
 

GSL Networks Pty Ltd. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Alex Alvanos, Bobservers
WIPO Case No. D2021-2255
The complainant was represented by Dowd & Company, Australia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 24, 2004.
The Complainant appears to have been incorporated on August 4, 2017 with trademarks registered in 2020 with a “first use in commerce” date of April 1, 2016.

The Complainant should have known that its case was fatally weak and thus never should have been filed. The Complainant is a corporate entity represented by experienced counsel.

This Complaint was therefore doomed to fail at the outset as the Complainant could not prove registration in bad faith. The Complainant and/or its legal counsel should have appreciated this.

See News Story:
BEWARE COMPLAINANTS: REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING MIGHT BE AROUND THE CORNER

 
 
 
 

The Guitammer Company v. Herschel Thompson
NAF Case No. FA2108001958918

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name buttkicker.com was registered in September 1996.
The Complainant had a trademark registered November 2003.

The Panel finds that the Complainant knew or ought to have known that it was unable to prove either that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in thebuttkicker.com domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The most glaring evidence for this conclusion is that the Domain Name was registered a decade before Complainant’s trademark rights came into existence .  It is logically impossible for the registration to have been made with the intent to infringe on trademark rights that did not yet exist.  Accordingly, the Panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred. . 

See News Stories:

Buttkicker.com kicked butt with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding.

Registrant Kicks Butt in Buttkicker.com UDRP.

 
 
 
 

Software Koibox S.L. v. Rolling Dice Productions, Inc.
WIPO Case No. D2021-1420
The complainant was internally represented.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name koibox.com was registered in November 1999.
The Complainant was founded in 2014.

Bearing in mind that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1999 some fourteen years before the Complainant even existed or adopted its trademark, the Complainant should have known the Complaint must fail.

See News Story:

Company filed UDRP even though domain owner registered domain well before it existed.

 
 
 
 

Damstra Technology Pty Ltd (ACN 086 218 742) v. Domain Admin, Tucows.com Co.
WIPO Case No. D2021-0675
The complainant was represented by Rankin Business Lawyers, Australia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Domain Name damstra.com was acquired by the Respondent in 2013 and predates the registration of the Trademark.
The Complainant 's trademark was filed May 26, 2020 and was registered December 14, 2021

In the present matter, the Panel finds that the Complainant should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required, as it is clear that the Respondent registered the Domain Name before the Complainant filed and registered the Trademark.

 
 
 
 

Levio Consulting Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Company Director, Glocal Commerce Limited.
WIPO Case No. D2021-0528
The complainant was represented by Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c., United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name levio.com was registered in September 28, 2013.
The Complainant has its formation date in 2020 and that its trademark was registered on April 21, 2020.

The Complainant should have taken into account that the Respondent has been the owner of the disputed domain name for a long period of time, which started years before the registration of the Complainant and of the LEVIO trademark, and that there is an established Policy precedent that where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent.”.

 

 
 
 
 

JHO Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC, Elite IP Holdings LLC v. Mahad Taheri
WIPO Case No. D2020-3504 Domain Name NOO.com
The complainant was represented by Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

Complainants’ trademarks date from the year 2020.
The domain name NOO.com was registered in 1998 and purchased by the respondent in 2005 predating any marks claimed by the Complainant by 15 years.

The Panel finds that the facts in this case demonstrate Complainants knew or should have known after reasonable investigation that their claim was baseless and they could not succeed in demonstrating the required three elements of the Policy. Respondent registered the Domain Name approximately 15 years before Complainant acquired trademark rights in its NOO marks, and there is no evidence of bad faith use of the Domain Name during those 15 years, nor evidence of targeting Complainants’ marks even after Complainant acquired rights in them.

See News Stories:
Oh NOO.com! UDRP Complainant found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Reverse domain name hijacking in NOO.com dispute
UDRP on noo.com: reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

Biohacks GmbH v. Daniel Walton/ Wishbone Media, Inc.
WIPO Case No. D2021-0050
The complainant was represented by horak., Attorneys at Law, Germany.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name biohacks.com was registered in 2008.
The Complainant registered a trademark in 2018. 10 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration.

The Complainant knew or should have known that the Respondent was not acting in bad faith, especially considering the disputed domain name was registered long before the Complainant acquired trademark rights for BIOHACKS.

See News Stories:

Complainant slapped with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding
Biohacks GmbH tries reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

AgSpace Agriculture Limited v. Anthony Glynn, AG Space Industries
WIPO Case No. D2019-1532
The complainant was self represented.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name agspace.com was registered in 1998.
The Complainant operates its business since September 2013 and registered a trademark in 2014.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in connection to a legitimate business activity conducted under the name AG Space Limited since 1998, more than 14 years before the Complainant started its business or applied for its trademark. In the present case, however, the Complainant knew it could not succeed as to the second and third element of the Policy as the Complainant had clear knowledge of the Respondent’s commercial identity corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name and the lack of bad faith by the Respondent. ..... As a result, the Complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the Complaint.

See News Story:
AgSpace Agriculture tries to reverse hijack domain name

 
 
 
 

Gary Chupik v. Shant Sarkuni
NAF Case No. FA1910001868583

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name elitemindset.com was registered April 18, 2017.
The Complainant registered a trademark August 20, 2019.

Respondent submits that Complainant knew or should have known that his trademark applications were filed more than a year and nine months after the Respondent had acquired the disputed domain name (and more than 10 years after the original registrant had registered it).

Complainant knew or should have known, at the time it filed the Complaint, that he could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. As Respondent has correctly submitted this is indicative of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

In the circumstances, this Panel finds that Complainant, being aware that he was not entitled to succeed, nonetheless brought this Complaint with the hope that he may secure the transfer of the disputed domain name, after he had failed to purchase same in open commercial arms-length negotiations.

See News Stories:
The UDRP Case That Was Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
How this RDNH could have been prevented


 
 
 
 

Acubit A/S v. Ting Zhao
WIPO Case No. D2019-3128
The complainant was represented by Hjulmand & Kaptain, Denmark.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name acubit.com was registered in 2009, seven years before the Complainant was incorporated in 2016.

The Complainant is professionally represented in this matter and, in the opinion of the Panel, knew or ought to have known that it had no reasonable chance of prevailing in this proceeding for the reasons set out above, including in particular the fact that the disputed domain name had been registered many years before the Complainant began using the trademarks in question.

See News Stories:
WIPO panel finds that Danish start-up Acubit engaged in reverse domain name hijacking
Acubit tries reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

Advice Group S.P.A. v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc. / Michele Dinoia, Macrosten LTD
WIPO Case No. D2019-2441
The complainant was represented by CLIP Legal, Italy.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent owned the Domain Name since September 19, 2014.
The Complainant holds an Italian trademark registered on December 16, 2016.

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.).
The Amended Complaint inappropriately relies on accusations of “cybersquatting” by the “Respondent”, citing proceedings that did not involve Mr. Dinoia and failing to show how the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s mark when the Registrar indicates that the Respondent acquired the Domain Name some two years before the Complainant obtained a trademark, and nine months before the Complainant even filed its trademark application.

See News Stories:
Advicegroup.com UDRP ends up with a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
UDRP Procedure: abuse of right or, when the complaint is brought in bad faith

 
 
 
 

Infocert S.p.a. v. Information Brokers, Inc.
WIPO Case No. D2019-1405
The complainant was represented by Studio Torta S.p.A., Italy.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name infocert.com was registered in 1998.
The Complainant’s earliest registered trademark was filed in 2004 with a registered date 2010 12 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration

The Panel considers in the present case the following reasons for a finding of RDNH:
(1) the Complaint could never have succeeded given the Disputed Domain Name was registered before the Complainant even existed......

Given the relevant facts, the nature of the Policy and the fact that the Complainant was advised by a firm of lawyers this was a case which should never have been brought nor should it have been presented in the manner it was. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding

See News Stories:
Infocert .com UDRP ends up with a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Italian company InfoCert tries reverse domain name hijacking
Italian Company’s Plan To Grab Domain Short Circuits

 
 
 
 

Knud Jepsen A/S v. Rick Schwartz, Virtual Dates Inc
WIPO Case No. D2017-0679
The complainant was represented by Marie Lykke Kristiansen of lawfirm 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
Five reasons why Rick Schwartz won the Queen.com UDRP with RDNH
Queen.com UDRP: Queen.dk & Frands Jepsen are Reverse Domain Hijackers
Rick Schwartz takes the Queen.com UDRP up another notch
UDRP Filed Against Queen.com Owned by “Domain King” (Updated)
Queen.com Hijacking by Frands Jepsen of Knud Jepsen, Denmark, Foiled by WIPO
Queen.com, Home of Domain Hijacker Frands Jepsen
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!

 
 
 
 

Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto.
WIPO Case No D2017-0183
The complainant was represented byRajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Singapore.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name onechampionship.com in 2006.
The Complainant was incorporated in July 2011.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s trademark post-dates the registration of the disputed domain name in 2006. Likewise, the Complainant’s unregistered rights; the Complainant only started using the ONE CHAMPIONSHIP mark in 2015 and the ONE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP trademark in 2011, which was when the Complainant was incorporated.

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:
OneChampionship.com UDRP lands RDNH finding for Respondent
One Championship Found Guilty of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”
One Championship MMA group guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

Gesab, S.A. v. Domain Admin, Oyo AS
WIPO Case No. D2018-1323
The complainant was represented by Bellavista, Spain.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The respondent registered the domain name deskwall.com in 2015.
The complainant registered a trademark for "deskwall" in 2017.

Complainant has failed in its Complaint by a large margin. In the Panel's opinion, Complainant knew or at least should have known that it could not prove registration and use in bad faith. .... 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..

See News Stories:
Gesab, S.A. tries to Reverse Domain Name Hijack DeskWall.com
Beating head against the wall - UDRP panel find reverse domain name hijacking of ‘deskwall.com’

 
 
 
 

Insight Energy Ventures LLC v. Alois Muehlberger, L.M.Berger Co.Ltd.
WIPO Case No. D2016-2010
The complainant was represented by James A. Bumbaugh, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 2004.
The Complainant has trademarks registered in 2016.

Most obviously, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name more than 10 years before the Complainant registered either of its trade marks.

Abuse is commonly found where the complainant knew or ought to have known at the outset that for one reason or another the case was doomed to failure.

The Complaint had no prospect of success on the facts set out in the Complaint, and the Complainant or those advising it must have been aware of that fact.

See News Stories:
UDRP Panelists: Getting the Standard Right Where No Response is Filed

 
 
 
 

DEGANI DESIGNS, LLC v. Chris Morling / Dot Zinc Limited
NAF Case Number: FA1603001664293
The complainaint was represented by Marc Blumberg, Texas, USA.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the domain name in 2001.
The Complainant registered its trademark in 2012, 11 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration.

Before filing a complaint under the Policy, a complainant should undertake at least a cursory review of the circumstances under which it might prevail.  Clearly, precedence established under countless previous UDRP rulings suggests that there is no chance to obtain a positive outcome when there is no evidence presented to establish that a complainant has rights in a mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.

See News Stories:
Chooze.com : 15 year old domain saved from UDRP with a RDNH finding
Chooze clothing company is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

 
 
 
 

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

The Respondent registered the domain name in 1999.
The Complainant stated under oath that its first use of takeout.com as a trademark was March 4, 2010 11 years after the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name registration.

"[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
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.

In fact, the Complainants only sought to register the FAST MILL trade mark one month before the Complaint was filed, and 5 years after the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent. 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. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. 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.

See news story: Vortal Group Inc. is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
 
 
 

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


 
 
 
 

Affirm, Inc. v. Internet Products Sales & Services Pty Ltd
WIPO Case No. DAU2021-0014
The complainant by represented by DLA Piper, Australia.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

As noted under Part B above, it was never going to be possible for the Complainant to make out a case that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith in circumstances that the Respondent registered it six years before the Complainant had even commenced its business in the United States.

The Complainant, a publicly listed United States corporation advised by reputed international legal advisors, should have known better than to bring the Complaint in the circumstances.

See News Stories:
BNPL company Affirm attempts reverse domain hijacking
Affirm Inc. were founded in 2012. They’ve just filed an auDRP against Affirm.com.au that’s been owned since 2006.
Affirm, Inc. lose their attempt to hijack Affirm.com.au
Affirm.com.au : Aussie domain UDRP ends up with a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding


 
 
 
 

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
Wow: Spectrum (Charter) is a reverse domain name hijacker
Charter found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

 
 
 
 

Dumankaya Yapi Malzemeleri SAN. VE TIC. A.S v. Domain Administrator, Name Administration Inc. (BVI).
WIPO Case No. D2015-1757
The complainant was represented by AYDIN & AYDIN Law Firm, Turkey.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent owned the domain name DKY.com since sometime between 2003 – 2005.
The Complainant started using the name DKY around 2012.

The Complainant's earliest registered "DKY" Trade Mark of which it has provided evidence was filed on October 16, 2012. This is around nine years after the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name (on October 9, 2003).

"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.

See News Stories:
Another LLL.com UDRP: DKY.com
Frank Schilling gets RDNH win on 3 letter domain name

 
 
 
 

R.V. Kuhns & Associates, Inc. v. Gregory Ricks / Whois Privacy Corp. / Domain Administrator
WIPO Case No. D2014-2041
The complainant was represented by Tonkon Torp LLP, United States.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 20, 2000.
The Complainant's date of first commercial use of its mark, according to its United States Trademark Registration, was April 7, 2000.

" Complainant knew that Respondent registered the disputed domain name several months prior to Complainant's claimed date of first use of its mark. Complainant must therefore have been aware that Respondent cannot have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since he cannot possibly have known of Complainant's as-yet-nonexistent claim to the mark."

See News Stories:
Investment firm RVK engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on RVK.com
Complainant fails to obtain transfer of three-letter domain name consisting of its mark
Investment Firm RVK Found Guilty Of 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 by Law 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.

 

 
 
 
 

Parallax Group International, Limited Liability Corporation v. Anything.com Ltd. (.ky).
WIPO Case No D2008-1545
The complainant was represented by Fish & Associates, United States of America.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name NORSK.com was registered in 1998.
The mark was first used by the Complainant in January 2004.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on April 1, 1998, which is five and a half years before the Complainant's first use of the NÖRSK trademark. It is therefore impossible for the Complainant to show that the Respondent has used or registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent could not have had a non-existent trademark in mind when it registered the disputed domain name.

In this case, the disputed domain name was registered at least five years prior to the Complainant's first use of the trademark. This information was available to the Complainant prior to it filing the Complaint. In addition, in the Panel's view, the Complainant should have been aware prior to filing the Complaint of the descriptive meaning of “Norsk” and the widespread third party use of that term. Further, the Complainant has failed to show that the disputed domain name was registered in anticipation of the Complainant's obtaining trademark rights in that term.

The Complainant failed to provide any substantive evidence in its Complaint. The Complainant should also have known at the time of filing the Complaint, that such a lack of evidence and authority would mean that the Complainant would be unlikely to satisfy the onus placed on it by the Policy.

See News Story:
WIPO Flashback – Norsk.com (RDNH)

 
 
 
 

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
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
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


 
 
 
 

M. Corentin Benoit Thiercelin v. CyberDeal, Inc
WIPO Case No. D2010-0941
The complainant was represented by Chain Association d’Avocats, France.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The domain name virtualexpo.com was registered in 1996.
The Complainant has three trade mark registrations covering the mark virtualexpo in one shape or form. The earliest of the three is dated 2005.

In the view of the Panel this is a Complaint which should never have been launched. The Complainant knew that the Domain Name was registered nearly 10 years before the Complainant acquired his registered rights, no attempt was made to demonstrate the existence of any earlier rights nor was any attempt made to address the issue arising from the disparity in dates.

See News Stories:
French company guilty of reverse domain name hijacking for VirtualExpo.com.
VirtualExpo in fifth reverse domain finding this year.

 
 
 
 

Optilead Ltd. v. Christophe de Larquier
WIPO Case No. D2015-0131
The complainant was represented by Conrad Fahrenkrug, Chile.

Complaint denied with RDNH.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2004. This was approximately 9 years before the date of the Complainant's earliest trade mark registration in the United Kingdom.

The Panel considers that this Complaint is an abuse of the Policy and that the Complainant should have known better, particularly in circumstances that it had legal representation.

See News Story:
Optilead Ltd. engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

 
     
 
 
  Return to www.TRTL.com homepage.