Firm tries reverse domain name hijacking — French financial
WIPO panelist finds many faults in cybersquatting case.
A French banking and credit firm has been found to have tried reverse domain name hijacking.
La Banque Populaire Val de France filed a dispute (pdf) against the domain name vdft.com. It claimed that it has common law trademark rights to VDFT since it has marketed a real estate financing program as Val de France Transactions, or VDFT, since 2012.
The firm encountered a number of problems in its case.
First, it failed to show common law trademark rights in VDFT. On its website, it doesn’t appear to use that acronym on the page regarding Val de France Transactions. The firm owns vdft.fr, but hasn’t used it.
It also didn’t show that the domain, originally registered in 2005, had changed hands since it purportedly began using its trademark in 2012. This would have been easy to do, and it was a failure on the part of its lawyer.
Even if it had shown a transfer, the panel noted that the registrant purchased the domain for its intrinsic value as a four-letter domain.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Wilson Pinheiro Jabur wrote:
This is a clear case in which the Complainant, represented by Counsel, ought to have known that it could not have succeeded under the Policy: the Complainant has not shown unregistered rights over VDFT; the disputed domain name was registered in 2005 (without evidence showing a later buyout by the Respondent), well ahead of the Complainant started offering its VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS service in 2012; the disputed domain name consists of a four letter domain name that can be read as different acronyms; the Complainant intends to rely on its alleged notoriety which still does not extend to VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS and particularly not to VDFT based on the evidence provided by the Complainant; there is no bad faith use by the Respondent, who is not and has never targeted the Complainant.
La SELARL JB avocat represented the Complainant, and Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions represented the domain name owner.
