Inconsistency in UDRP rulings — An interesting

This panelist has a different standard for the first element of UDRP.

This morning I was reading the UDRP decision for CallFinder.com.

Panelist David Einhorn got the answer correct — the domain name shouldn’t have been transferred to a firm that got a trademark for CallFinder many years following the domain name was registered.

But I was surprised to see that Einhorn found that 800 Response Marketing, LLC failed to prove the first prong of the UDRP. The first prong basically states that the domain name is confusingly similar to a market in which the complainant has rights.

Most UDRP panels won’t consider dates for this first element. If the complainant has rights in the mark, and it’s confusingly similar to the domain at issue, the complainant will win the first prong. The panels deal with the date issue in the third element, registered and used in bad faith.

Not Einhorn. He considers dates in this first element.

Einhorn is consistent in considering dates under the first element of UDRP. If you look at his past UDRP denials, he considers dates multiple times for the first element.

While he gets the answer right, this contradicts recent standards for UDRP cases.

Perhaps it’s an easy way for him to dismiss a case with the least amount of work possible.

In the CallFinder.com case, Einhorn declined to find reverse domain name hijacking. This is surprising following he wrote “Complainant is a legitimate trademark owner who was attempting to improperly apply the Policy to a domain name which pre-dates its trademark rights.”

That sounds like reverse domain name hijacking to me!

Speaking of reverse domain name hijacking, why didn’t panelist Clive Elliott consider it for PacificMountain.com?