Reverses .uk cybersquatting decision, finds reverse domain name hijacking — Appeals panel
Panel states complainant doubled down despite evidence refuting its case.
One of the key differences between the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) for .uk cybersquatting claims and the UDRP is that DRS cases can be appealed.
In a recent case, the appeal not only overturned the original decision but also resulted in a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
iManage LLC, a US firm that provides document management technology, filed a dispute against manage.co.uk.
The elderly registrant was ill and did not respond to the original case. The panelist found in iManage’s favor and ordered the domain transferred.
The registrant appealed and rebutted iManage’s arguments.
It appears that much of iManage’s case hinged on the argument that the domain registrant set up subdomains on manage.co.uk, counting one that featured one of its clients’ names. It posited that this must have been done to undertake phishing or something similar, since iManage had a similar subdomain set up for that client.
But the domain is parked at Sedo, and you can type in any subdomain on domains parked there, and it will resolve to the same lander as the second level domain.
The three-member appeals panel stated that iManage ought to have withdrawn its case when presented with the registrant’s counterarguments. Instead, it doubled down, only belatedly agreeing that the domain was not, indeed, used in bad faith.
It noted that basic research regarding the registrant would suggest that he was not the type of person to engage in phishing.
The panel also stated that, although it can’t force iManage to pay the registrant’s legal costs, it ought to consider doing so:
The bad faith arises since of the repeated reliance on assumptions which lacked proper technical support, the refusal to consider alternative evidence, and the continued insistencethat the Respondent was acting dishonestly when the cumulative effect of the evidence was to suggest that was extremely unlikely. This is the only censure the Panel can apply under the Policy. The Panel notes that the Respondent is a private individual. The Complainant is a sizable and successful corporation operating on an international basis. The Respondent has incurred Nominet’s appeal fee and legal costs. The Panel considers it was entirely understandable that he engaged legal support, given that the Expert’s decision included what was in effect a finding of dishonesty against him. The Panel has no power to order the Complainant to pay the Respondent’s costs. It does still have the ability to invite the Complainant voluntarily to pay those costs and considers the Complainant ought to do so. It would also in the Panel’s opinion be appropriate for the Complainant to issue an apology to the Respondent.
The full decision is here (pdf).
