German firm tries reverse hijacking domain from Tucows

Complainant omitted key parts of pre-dispute correspondence in its filing.

A German building products firm has been found (pdf) to have tried reverse hijacking a domain name.

Otto Lehmann GmbH filed a dispute against the domain lehmann.com.

The domain is registered to Tucows and is part of its surname portfolio. Tucows offers email addresses for domains in this portfolio.

Otto Lehmann and Tucows had pre-dispute correspondence, during which time the complainant tried to acquire the domain. Tucows was very clear in outlining why it owns the domain and its history of successfully defending domains in cybersquatting disputes.

Despite this, Otto Lehmann filed a UDRP. It also omitted part of the pre-dispute correspondence from its filing.

A three-person World Intellectual Property Organization panel found in Tucows’ favor and ruled this was attempted reverse domain name hijacking:

The Panel concludes that the Complainant, represented by counsel, ought to have known that it could not have succeeded under the Policy, there being no targeting of the Complainant and a well-established legitimate use of the disputed domain name.

In addition to that, the Complainant’s assertion that “the industrialized model used by the Respondent does not reflect any genuine or bona fide use of the LEHMANN mark, rather constituting a pretext for holding the disputed domain name as a tradeable asset while generating incidental revenue, a practice that UDRP panels have by now declined to recognize as conferring legitimate interests” is not supported by the precedents in which it replies. A review of the decisions cited by the Complainant shows that they are clearly distinguishable from the circumstances of the present case, as they involved domain names used in connection with websites seeking to attract Internet traffic by creating an undue association with well-known individuals or celebrities…

…Moreover, another serious concern arises from the Complainant’s omission of material portions of the email correspondence exchanged between the Parties prior to the commencement of this proceeding. Under this Panel’s view, the selective omission of correspondence plainly material to the assessment of theRespondent’s intent constitutes a deliberate attempt to present the Panel with an incomplete and misleading account of the factual record.

This is particularly troubling given the certification required under paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules that the information contained in the Complaint is, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, “complete and accurate”. UDRP panels have previously emphasized the significance of this certification, particularly where a complainant is represented by counsel…

…The Panel further notices that, if the Complainant’s assertion is correct, such conduct may also raise concerns under the professional and procedural standards applicable to German counsel; for present purposes, the selective omission of material correspondence is relevant to the Panel’s assessment under the Rules, counting the certification required by paragraph 3(b)(xiii), and to the question of Reverse Domain
Name Hijacking.

Kapellmann und Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB represented Otto Lehmann, and John Berryhill represented Tucows.