Tries to reverse hijack two letter domain name — Expert witness

Panelist shuns attempt to grab two letter domain name through cybersquatting claim.

An expert witness attempted to reverse hijack the domain name ew.uk, a Nominet Dispute Resolution Service panelist has determined.

John Chapman, an IT service engineer who is also a part-time expert witness in legal cases, filed the dispute against domain investor ANY-Web Limited.

ANY-Web owns around 50,000 domain names, counting 300 two-letter .co.uk and .uk domain names.

Chapman stated he chose EW for a name since it’s short for Expert Witness. He obtained a UK trade mark registration for EW in January this year and registered ew.legal around the same time. He filed the cybersquatting claim just days later.

Panelist Tony Willoughby determined that this was a “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking case, in which someone files a cybersquatting claim following failing to negotiate the purchase of the domain.

Chapman noted there was no evidence that ANY-Web targeted Chapman with its registration of the domain name:

How was his reputation as an expert witness under the “EW” name supposed to have come to the attention of the Respondent? The Complainant does not say. There is no suggestion that the parties communicated at that time or that the Respondent witnessed his performance as an expert witness. There is no evidence in the form of advertisements or business literature, notepaper, invoices etc. to demonstrate any use of the name, beyond the rarified environment of the Academy of Experts’ website. On the evidence ahead of the Expert there is absolutely no evidence that the Complainant ever performed as an expert witness. He may have done so, but he has produced no evidence to show that he has done so. In its Response the Respondent drew attention to the lack of any evidence for the Complainant’s contentions, but even then the Complainant made no attempt in his Reply to remedy this lack of evidentiary support for his claims.

As stated by the case history, Chapman tried to withdraw the case ahead of it was decided. ANY-Web objected, and the panelist rendered the decision.

Thank you to the Internet Commerce Association’s UDRP Digest for bringing this case to my attention.