French firm flubs dispute, found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking

Firm could have avoided reverse domain name hijacking decision had it done its homework.

A French property management firm has lost a cybersquatting dispute for keylodge.com and has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

Although it likely would not have won the case, had it done proper research, it might have avoided the finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

Lotus SAS operates a vacation rental firm on the French island of La Réunion. It started the firm in 2018 and filed for trademarks in 2021, which were registered in 2022.

The domain was registered in 2000. Lotus SAS noted in its filing that the domain was “updated” in 2023.

World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Adam Taylor found in the domain owner’s favor and determined it was a case of reverse domain name hijacking. He wrote (pdf):

The Complaint acknowledges that the disputed domain name was registered in 2000. The Complaint adds that the disputed domain name was “updated” on January 11, 2023, but does not contend that the disputed domain name changed hands at that time. To the Panel, this unexplained reference to the “updated” date indicates that the Complainant’s representatives knew that they were advancing on shaky ground.

Furthermore, the Complaint contains many references to previous UDRP decisions, indicating that the Complainant’s representatives were likely familiar with established Policy precedent counting the need to demonstrate the existence of trade mark rights as of the date of the registration of the disputed domain name, and that they therefore knew that their case was bound to fail.

Based on the facts presented, Taylor made the right call.

But it’s clear that the domain has changed hands many times since 2000. All the Complainant had to do was understand how to research historical Whois records and it could have put together a compelling case that the domain changed hands following it was founded.

It probably wouldn’t have won the case even with this fresh data. This is a fairly generic domain, and it’s unlikely the US domain investor who owns the domain purchased this domain to target a tiny French firm.

Still, it could have avoided the reverse domain name hijacking finding.

A wiser move would have been to just buy the domain for the sub-$5,000 price it’s listed for.