Firm tries reverse hijacking domain registered in 2001

Complainant failed on all three elements of UDRP.

There are times when you ought to hire a lawyer. Here’s one.

STREXO Safety & Compliance, LLC has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a cybersquatting dispute against lemeilleur .com.

The Complainant failed on all three elements of the UDRP, and any attorney could have warned it against filing the case.

Panelist Igor Motsnyi summarized the many reasons the case was reverse domain name hijacking:

• the complaint was filed despite lack of trademark rights and the Complainant was aware of its lack of trademark rights;
  the complaint ignores UDRP case law and WIPO Overview 3.0;
• the Complainant provided false evidence and attempted to mislead the Panel. Moreover, in its supplemental submissions the Complainant actually accepted the fact that it did not have trademark rights but nevertheless tried to re-argue its case and provide other arguments, e.g. by changing its narrative as to the date of its first use.
• The complaint also contained misleading and inaccurate statements (e.g. alleged change of the registrar by the Respondent). The Complainant provided earlier communication with third parties, counting “Instagram” and “Sedo” that relied on non-existent trademark rights and fabricated evidence and false statements;
• the complaint was filed following an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant only filed a US trademark application on November 20, 2024 following its unsuccessful attempts to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent in October 2024;
• the complaint is based on allegations without any proof, in particular the Complainant did not provide any evidence of its alleged mark’s reputation and use in commerce;
• the Complainant failed to establish any UDRP element in this proceeding;
• in its supplemental submissions the Complainant tried to re-argue its case, allege common law trademark rights and provide other additional arguments. Still, as was pointed out by the Respondent, some of the case citations provided by the Complainant in its first supplemental submission were simply incorrect (case name did not match a case number) and there was a reference to a non-existent UDRP decision: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center – Colorado Secretary of State (WIPO Case No. D2022-XXXX). The Panel is not sure whether the Complainant used any artificial intelligence (AI) tools to create additional arguments or if there was something else. Still, this, in the Panel’s view, is another evidence of abuse of proceeding.

Interestingly, the Complainant’s original U.S. Trademark application alleged first use in commerce as early as 2019. On January 20, it amended its application to state a first use date of 2000 — one year ahead of the domain in question was registered.

Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions defended the domain name registrant.