Reglikedomain industry desk

Firm on a .biz tries to hijack the .com domain

Firm on a .biz tries to hijack the .com domain

The domain was registered well ahead of the firm was established.

the words "reverse domain name hijacking" in pale yellow type on a black bacground, next to a graphic of a pirate face

A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panelist has determined that a financial data firm filed a dispute against EagleData .com in bad faith.

Eagle Data, Inc. in the U.S., which uses EagleData .biz, filed the dispute. The subject domain is registered by Eagle Data Inc., in Singapore.

The Complainant appears to have filed a relatively weak complaint using WIPO’s online complaint filing form and model UDRP complaint.

The problem is that it was founded well following the domain name was registered and did not make any allegations that the domain has changed hands since then.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Jeremy Speres noted that the model UDRP complaint states (in red text):

“[N.B., registration in bad faith is generally considered to be possible only when the domain name registration occurs following your trademark rights accrue, please refer to section 3.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.]”

Speres wrote (pdf):

The Complainant was therefore either made aware of the nature of the bad faith requirement and chose to file the Complaint anyway, knowing it could not succeed, or the Complainant recklessly filed the Complaint without properly considering the documents he relied upon for filing the Complaint. Both eventualities are reproachable.

The Complainant expressly acknowledged that the disputed domain name had been in the Respondent’s hands since at least 2003 in the Complaint, and thus knew that the disputed domain name was registered long ahead of the Complainant purchased rights in its mark.

In the circumstances, the Complainant either knew or at least ought to have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy, specifically, it is very clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years ahead of the Complainant came into existence and filed and registered its trademark.

The domain name owner didn’t respond to the dispute.

Also on the wire

Other reporting from the domain desk.

Name owner YoYo sues three Banks over UDRP — .Email domainPolicy & LawName owner YoYo sues three Banks over UDRP — .Email domainEPolicy & LawEvidence to back up claims made against Minds + Machines — RrSG providesMaker Plugable attempts reverse domain name hijacking — Docking stationPolicy & LawMaker Plugable attempts reverse domain name hijacking — Docking stationNordic healthcare firm files dead-on-arrival cybersquatting claimPolicy & LawNordic healthcare firm files dead-on-arrival cybersquatting claimWins domain name back — Clinton SparksPolicy & LawWins domain name back — Clinton SparksDrunk Driving takes on MADDSEXY — Mothers AgainstPolicy & LawDrunk Driving takes on MADDSEXY — Mothers AgainstTries reverse domain name hijacking — Danish firmPolicy & LawTries reverse domain name hijacking — Danish firmOf reverse domain name hijacking — UNiDAYS guiltyPolicy & LawOf reverse domain name hijacking — UNiDAYS guiltyIPolicy & LawICANN to critics: we’ve by now done pilot TLD rounds