Expert tries to reverse hijack domain name — Air quality
The firm might have a trademark claim, but not a cybersquatting claim under UDRP.
A UDRP panelist has found My Healthy Home, LLC to have tried reverse hijacking the domain name healthyhomeexperts.net.
The Complainant operates a business using the domain healthyhomeexpert.com, which helps people improve indoor air quality. The Respondent provides foundation repair and waterproofing services in Indiana.
My Healthy Home has a trademark for Healthy Home Expert that was registered well ahead of the Respondent purchased its domain name. Still, it’s clear that the Respondent is not cybersquatting; it runs a real business on the domain name and uses the “Healthy Home” moniker on trucks, equipment, and team uniforms.
In other words, the Complainant tried to shoehorn a trademark dispute into a cybersquatting dispute.
Panelist Nathalie Dreyfus wrote:
In the present case, Complaint appears to have been filed with the intent of depriving Respondent of their legitimate domain name. The Panel notes that Complainant failed to present any valid arguments or evidence to support their claim.
This goes beyond a weak or poorly substantiated case, such as an inadequately proven claim to a common law trademark. Based on the criteria in the carsales.com.au Limited case, Complainant ought to have been aware at the time of filing that they could not meet the Policy’s essential requirements.
Additionally, the Panel would like to remind that the UDRP procedure is not intended to address complex trademark infringement cases but only to focus on the UDRP Policy: identity or similarity of the domain name, lack of legitimate rights, and bad faith in registration and use. The present procedure is specifically designed to address cases of cybersquatting, and not to resolve more complex disputes for which national courts would have jurisdiction (see Sylvain Rafton v. Farhat Hedi, Napoleon & Cie, WIPO Case No. D2015-0207, and La Selafa MJA, represented by Me Lucile Jouve, Studio Pilote v. Alexander Mouselli, WIPO Case No. D2015-1870, WIPO Case No. D2023-4169, LC Bespoke v. Monsieur Manuel Chaufrein).
In other words, holding prior trademark rights alone is insufficient to demonstrate the respondent’s lack of legitimate rights or bad faith, WIPO case No. D2024-1195, Pools123 Houston LLC v. John J Mehrman, Aquamarine Pools of Texas.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at RDNH.
Michael J Feigin of Feigin and Fridman represented the Complainant, and John Walsh, Esq. of Drewry Simmons Vornhehm, LLP represented the Respondent.
