Fashion firm’s cybersquatting case falls apart at the seams, panel finds RDNH

Designer’s former fashion house tried to reverse hijack the domain name from her.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found (pdf) a fashion firm guilty of reverse domain name hijacking following it tried to take a domain name matching its founder’s personal name.

Temperley Holdings Limited filed a cybersquatting complaint against fashion designer Alice Temperley over AliceTemperley.com.

Temperley founded luxury fashion brand Temperley London and registered the domain in 2016. She sold a majority stake in the business in 2023.

The timing of the domain registration made this case dead on arrival.

Alice Temperley registered AliceTemperley.com in January 2016. At the time, she personally owned the Alice Temperley trademark. She assigned the trademark to Temperley Holdings in November 2023, nearly eight years later, when she sold the business.

That made it impossible for Temperley Holdings to show that the domain was originally registered in bad faith.

The firm’s official website is TemperleyLondon.com. It does not appear that AliceTemperley.com was used for the business.

The dispute arose following Temperley left the firm in July of this year. That’s when the fashion designer put up a website regarding her plans for future endeavors.

Still, her employment agreements expressly allowed her to use her own name for a fresh business venture as long as she appropriately differentiated it from the firm’s business.

The panel found nothing on the website that appeared to compete with Temperley London. It stated the site presented Temperley as an individual offering services based on her experience and creative expertise.

The reverse domain name hijacking finding went beyond the timing issue.

Temperley Holdings relied on a 2023 Letter of Intent to argue that Temperley’s use of her name was contractually restricted. But the document expressly stated that it was not legally binding and was subject to a later definitive agreement.

At the same time, the firm did not submit Temperley’s subsequent service agreements, even though those agreements contained provisions expressly addressing her right to use her own name.

The panel stated this was “the provision of intentionally incomplete material evidence, which the Respondent was required to clarify.”

Panelists Andrew D. S. Lothian, Jonathan Agmon and David Stone denied the complaint and found reverse domain name hijacking.

Maucher Jenkins represented Temperley Holdings. Briffa Legal Limited represented Alice Temperley.