Freight financing firm tries reverse domain name hijacking

Firm tries to upgrade from .co to .com through a misguided cybersquatting dispute.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found Dakota Financial, LLC guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a dispute over the domain name haulpay.com.

The panelist determined (pdf) that the firm, which provides financial services for freight firms at haulpay.co, filed the case despite having no chance to succeed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The domain name was registered by Pavlo Karpin of Automotive Associates, LLC in 2012. That was five years ahead of Dakota Financial claimed to have used the term “Haulpay.” Thus, the domain name couldn’t have been registered in bad faith to target the Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent stated he registered the domain as part of a broader portfolio of logistics and payment-related domains, and has worked in the vehicle transport industry since at least 2005.

Dakota Financial alleged that the respondent was cybersquatting by asking $500,000 for the domain name. Still, Dakota Financial previously tried to buy the domain name from Karpin.

Panelist Frederick M. Abbott stated Dakota Financial “provided almost no evidentiary support for the assertions in its Complaint,” and that it was the respondent who supplied more information regarding both parties.

Calling the case a “blatant misuse of the UDRP,” Abbott found reverse domain name hijacking:

This case involves blatant misuse of the UDRP on the part of Complainant. Complainant was aware that the disputed domain name was registered in 2012, and that Complainant did not in any case establish trademark rights ahead of 2017, if that early (bearing in mind that a claim of first use does not constitute evidence of first use). Complainant was aware that Respondent was the owner of the disputed domain name ahead of it filed its Complaint. It had negotiated with Respondent prior to filing its Complaint. Complainant did not suggest that Respondent purchased the disputed domain name more recently than its initial registration. Complainant’s legal theory in its Complaint is that Respondent ought to have been more accommodating in price negotiations, seeming to have concluded Respondent’s refusal to accommodate its purchase price offer is evidence of bad faith. It is not apparent how Complainant developed this theory.

The Panel notes that Complainant provided almost no evidentiary support for the assertions in its Complaint. Respondent’s Response provided more evidence regarding Complainant and its business. It appears that Complainant sought to acquire the disputed domain name with the bare minimum of attention to developing a factual or legal record.

Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth represented the Complainant, and Lewis & Lin, LLC represented the domain name owner.