TRTL.COM

 
 

Other UDRP cases are now citing the Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited UDRP case regarding the TRTL.com domain name:

 

 
 
 
 

Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / David Wieland, iEstates.com, LLC
Case No. D2016-1709

The Complainant Intellect Design Arena Limited of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India was represented by S Eshwar Consultants, India.

The failings in the Complaint are compounded by the fact that the Complainant delayed making any attempt to withdraw it notwithstanding the Respondent’s counsel’s letter of July 16, 2016 which specifically pointed out, together with supporting evidence, that the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain name on any view must have pre-dated the use of the UNMAIL mark by the Complainant by a reasonable period.  The Respondent’s counsel also pointed out that it would seek a finding of RDNH if the Complainant were to insist in the Complaint.  Even in the face of these clear warnings, the Complainant only sought termination of the proceeding on August 5, 2016 after the Respondent had been put to the time and expense of preparing its Response (see Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335 for a similar example where the complainant was warned that its case was baseless in prior correspondence between the parties, leading to a finding of RDNH).

See news stories:
Zak Muscovitch gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking win
Failed Purchase Negotiations Prompt A Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Complaint
Three Kinds of UDRP Disputes and Their Outcomes
Noteworthy Domain Name Decisions for 2016


 
 
 
 

TOBAM v. M. Thestrup / Best Identity
Case No. D2016-1990

The Complainant TOBAM of Paris, France, was represented by Cornet Vincent Segurel, France.

 

Paragraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") states the following consensus view: "Generally speaking, although a trademark can form a basis for a UDRP action under the first element irrespective of its date […], when a domain name is registered by the respondent before the complainant's relied-upon trademark right is shown to have been first established (whether on a registered or unregistered basis), the registration of the domain name would not have been in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant's then non-existent right." ……the overwhelming approach of UDRP panels since then has been to affirm the literal meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and to require bad faith at the time of registration or acquisition of the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335 This Panel agrees and considers that lack of registration in bad faith is fatal to the case.

See news stories:
Tobam.com UDRP results in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding
Asset management firm Tobam is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Lewis & Lin Obtains a Finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by WIPO Panel
Noteworthy Domain Name Decisions for 2016


 
 
 
 

Tip Vy Spots LLC Vy v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot
Case No. D2016-0872

The Complainant Tip Vy Spots LLC Vy of Wilmington, Delaware, USA, was represented by Scherrer Patent & Trademark Law, P.C., USA.

 

- The Complainant, which is represented by counsel, has not even tried to explain why ordinary precedent should not apply, which is directly contrary to its undertaking (Complaint paragraph 21, required by Rule 3(b)(xiii)) "that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument."Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335 See, e.g., Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335

See news story
Parties not revealed in Reveel.com UDRP

 
 
 
 

Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and Charter Communications Operating LLC v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Sheri K Corwin
Case No. D2017-0040

The Complainants, Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and Charter Communications Operating LLC of Stamford, Connecticut, USA, were represented by Loeb & Loeb, LLP, US.

In any case, the Panel adds that the overwhelming approach of UDRP panels since Octogen has been to reject alternative approaches such as that espoused in Octogen and to affirm paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requiring bad faith at the time of registration or acquisition of the disputed domain name. See, e.g.,Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335.


See news stories:
MySpectrumNews.com : Charter Communications guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Wow: Spectrum (Charter) is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

 
 
 
 

Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto
Case No. D2017-0183

The Complainant, Group One Holdings Pte Ltd of Singapore was represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Singapore.

 

…the overwhelming approach of UDRP panels since then has been to affirm the literal meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and to require bad faith at the time of registration or acquisition of the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited WIPO Case No. D2016-0335

See news stories:
One Championship MMA group guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
One Championship Found Guilty of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”

OneChampionship.com UDRP lands RDNH finding for Respondent

 
 
 
 

Screen-It Graphics of Lawrence, Inc. d/b/a Grandstand v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Dorinda Brews, Spadion Corporation
Case No. D2017-1709

The Complainant Screen-It Graphics of Lawrence, Inc. d/b/a Grandstand of Lawrence, Kansas, United States was represented by Hovey Williams LLP, United States.

The Complainant has utterly ignored settled Policy precedent on several matters fundamental under the language of the Policy and longtime Policy precedent. Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited WIPO Case No. D2016-0335 ("The Complainant ignored settled Policy precedent in presenting its case as it does"). A few of the more egregious examples are failure to allege or prove targeting, failure to provide proof of either registration or use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, and citing a number of Policy provisions and precedent misleadingly out of context.

 

See news stories:
UDRP Filed Against Grandstand.com (Updated)
Owner of eGrandstand.com files UDRP against Grandstand.com


 
 
 
 

Airtango AG v. Privacydotlink Customer 2290723 / Gustavo Winchester
Case No. D2017-2095

The Complainant Airtango AG of Crailsheim, Germany, was represented by Dr. Meyer-Dulheuer & Partners LLP, Germany.


To succeed in a complaint under the Policy it is well-established that under this, the third factor (paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy), the first thing that a complainant must prove on the preponderance of the evidence is that the domain name in issue was registered in bad faith, i.e., was registered with the complainant and/or its trade mark in mind. See, for example, Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:

"The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2000, some 10 years before the Complainant came into existence, and 13 years before the Complainant acquired rights in respect of the mark TRTL and subsequently commenced trading under that name. In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the name TRTL at the time of registration. In this Panel's view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith."

See news stories:
AirTango.com UDRP decision : Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
2 more RDNH: Airtango and Laboratorios del Dr. Esteve

 
 
 
 

Mister Auto SAS v. Wharton Lyon & Lyon
Case No. D2018-1330

The Complainant Mister Auto SAS of Villeurbanne, France was represented by Cairn Legal, Belgium.


In this instance the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 1999. According to the Complaint, the Complainant first used the Trade Mark in its business in 2008, and obtained registered rights in the Trade Mark in 2010, i.e., after the Disputed Domain Name was registered. At the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered the Complainant had not yet commenced operations of its business, nor did it have any rights in the Trade Mark.

As stated by the panel in Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:
“In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the [trade mark] at the time of registration. In this Panel’s view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith.”

The same reasoning applies here. The Complainant has not provided any evidence, nor has it even attempted to make any argument, as to why the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant or its future business operations at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Clearly, there is no such argument that can be made. The Complainant states that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the primary purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. This could not possibly have been the case, as the Complainant’s business did not exist when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Without this, based on the material before the Panel, there is no basis on which the Panel can find that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

 

See news stories:
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (even with no response)

 
 
 
 

AUSACORP, S.L v. Andrew David Dawson
Case No. D2018-1772

The Complainant AUSACORP, S.L of Barcelona, Spain was represented by Herrero & Asociados, Spain.


As stated by the panel in Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:
“In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the [trade mark] at the time of registration. In this Panel’s view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith.”

The same reasoning applies here. The Complainant has not provided any evidence, nor has it even attempted to make any argument, as to why the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant or its future business operations at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. See Mister Auto SAS v Wharton Lyon & Lyon WIPO Case No. D2018-1330.

The Complainant points to the Respondent’s attempt to sell the Disputed Domain Name at a high price as evidence of registration of bad faith. However, the Complainant neglected to inform the Panel that the Complainant approached the Respondent to attempt to purchase the Disputed Domain Name.

It could not possibly have been the case that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the primary purpose of selling the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant, as the Complainant’s business did not exist when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Without this, based on the material before the Panel, there is no basis on which the Panel can find that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

See news stories:
AUSACORP, S.L. hit for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Spain-based Industrial Firm Found Guilty Of RDNH


 
 
 
 

Sheryl Sandberg & Dave Goldberg Family Foundation v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Hecham Ghazal
Case No. D2019-0213

The Complainant, Sheryl Sandberg & Dave Goldberg Family Foundation of Palo Alto, California, United States was represented by Arnold & Porter, United States.

As stated by the panel in Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:
“In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the [trade mark] at the time of registration. In this Panel’s view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith.”

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not established bad faith registration as required by the third element of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel does not need to decide whether the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. However, there is no evidence to suggest bad faith use by the Respondent.

The Complainant has not proved bad faith use or bad faith registration.



See news stories:
Sheryl Sandberg loses cybersquatting claim over LeanIn.com domain name
LeanIn.com Subject of UDRP (Updated)

 

   
 
   
 

Art-Four Development Limited v. Tatiana Meadows
Case No. D2019-1311

The Complainant Art-Four Development Limited, United Kingdom was represented by Alexander Khorkin, Russian Federation.

 

The Panel finds that in the present case, the Complainant has failed to show that the Respondent had any bad faith intention when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The registration of the Disputed Domain Name predates the Complainant’s Trade Mark by almost 15 years and the Complainant has not asserted or provided any evidence that the Complainant had any registered or common law trademark rights before the date of registration of the Disputed Domain Name or that the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name on a later date. As stated by the panel in Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:

“In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the [trade mark] at the time of registration. In this Panel’s view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith.”



See news story:
Aizel : Russian luxury brand attempted to snatch 19 year old domain

 

 
 
 

Universa Investments L.P. v. c/o WHOIStrustee.com Limited, Registrant of universablockchain.com / Alexander Borodich, Universa Corporation Ltd. / Alexander Borodich
Case No. D2020-1567

The Complainant is Universa Investments L.P., United States was represented by Shartsis Friese LLP, United States.

 The Complainant was founded in January 2007. The Complainant registered the Trade Mark in 2019.

The disputed domain name universa.com was registered on October   21, 2001 and the disputed domain name universablockchain.com was registered on October 9, 2017.

As the Disputed Domain Names were both registered before 2018 (when   the application for the Trade Mark was filed), with one of the Disputed   Domain Names registered in 2001 before the Complainant even existed, th   Panel cannot accept the Complainants submission based on the evidence  before the Panel that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain   Names with the Complainant in mind.

As stated by the panel in Coolside Limited v. Get On The Web Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-0335:

In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent   cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential   existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently   acquire in the [trade mark] at the time of registration. In this Panel’s   view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been   registered in bad faith.


See news story:
This UDRP complaint has a couple of glaring mistakes.

 
 
 

 

Return to www.TRTL.com homepage.