Firm states Brent Oxley’s dictionary domain is a typo of its made up name
UDRP Panel finds healthcare firm tried to reverse hijack the domain prescriptive.com.
In one of the most amusing UDRP filings I’ve ever read, a firm with a made-up brand name argued that a correctly-spelled version of the word was typosquatting.
Healthcare technology firm Prescryptive Health uses the domain name prescryptive.com. It filed a dispute against the correctly spelled dictionary domain prescriptive.com, which is owned by domain investor Brent Oxley.
In an amazing sense of irony, Prescryptive argued:
The Disputed Domain Name, prescriptive.com, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRESCRYPTIVE mark since it differs by only a single character. The two are visually similar, easily mistaken, and pronounced identically. Since PRESCRYPTIVE is a coined, inherently distinctive mark with no dictionary meaning, the Disputed Domain Name has no independent descriptive value; its commercial value arises solely from its confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark.
It proceeded to argue that Oxley was cybersquatting by registering the correctly spelled term:
Third, Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain through a deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s PRESCRYPTIVE mark. Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the following facts:
(1) Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by registering a domain name that differs by only a single character from a distinctive mark;
(2) Respondent is offering what Complainant characterizes as a “typo-domain” for sale at a premium price. Since Respondent purchased the Disputed Domain Name years following Complainant had established rights in the PRESCRYPTIVE mark and the prescryptive.com domain name, the only plausible inference is that Respondent registered the name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights and for the purpose of selling it for profit;
The three-person panel called out Prescryptive for its ridiculous arguments:
Indeed, Complainant appears to fail to see the irony in its argument, that Respondent is typosquatting Complainant’s misspelled version of the dictionary word “prescriptive” by having registered a domain name that spells the dictionary word accurately. Equally meritless is Complainant’s assertion that “the only plausible inference is that Respondent registered the name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights and for the purpose of selling it for profit.” As Respondent explains, the Disputed Domain Name is not a typo or misspelling of Complainant’s mark. It is a dictionary word with independent meaning that is widely used.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel noted:
it is the height of irony that Complainant, who chose as its trademark a misspelling of the descriptive, dictionary word “prescriptive,” then cited that misspelling to argue that “PRESCRYPTIVE is a coined, inherently distinctive mark with no dictionary meaning” and that “the Disputed Domain Name has no independent descriptive value.”
Prescryptive Health was represented internally by its general counsel, and Greenberg & Lieberman, LLC represented Oxley.
