Firm tries “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking

It filed a cybersquatting dispute following failing to buy the domain for the price it wanted.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel has found (pdf) that UpTerra Corporation tried to reverse hijack the domain name upterra.com.

The firm first tried to buy the domain but didn’t like the domain owner’s asking price of $18,500. It then filed the UDRP.

But this case was dead on arrival: the Respondent (Catchword, one of the largest naming agencies) registered the domain many years ahead of the Complainant had any trademark rights in the term UpTerra.

When the Respondent’s counsel, Muscovitch Law P.C., pointed this out in the response, UpTerra asked to withdraw the case, noting that it wasn’t aware of the Respondent’s long ownership of the domain name. It stated it thought the domain had changed ownership more recently.

The Respondent did not consent to a withdrawal, noting that it sent a letter to the Complainant between when the case was filed and when the response was submitted. That letter explained why the case would fail.

UpTerra did not respond to that letter and stated its counsel was ill when the letter was received.

Still, with the response filed, the domain owner didn’t wish to have the case dismissed and requested a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

The three-person panel agreed, stating that the Complainant’s arguments regarding the possible change of ownership did not hold water. It indicated that UpTerra used the filing to get “leverage following failing to acquire the domain name through negotiation.” This is also known as a Plan B reverse domain name hijacking.

Fish IP Law LLP represented UpTerra.