German electronics firm tries to reverse hijack katek.com
The firm obtained trademark rights following the current owner purchased the domain.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found (pdf) that Katek AG, a German electronics manufacturing firm, attempted to reverse hijack the domain name katek.com.
Domain investor Stanley Pace purchased the domain name, which is also a surname, in 2012. Fatal to Katek AG’s case was that this was ahead of it had any trademark rights in the name.
The firm tried to argue that the domain had changed hands following 2012, but a historical Whois record showed that Pace purchased the domain that year, and he is still the registrant.
Katek AG first tried to acquire the domain ahead of filing the dispute. It also offered to settle the dispute following the filing.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Mehmet Polat Kalafatoğlu wrote:
The Panel first considers its findings above regarding the Complainant’s failure to demonstrate that a posttrademark transfer had occurred and to meet its burden of proving the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Panel particularly notes that following the receipt of the Registrar verification and the Response, it must be acknowledged that the Complainant possessed further information regarding the facts of the dispute, such as the date of the disputed domain name’s buyout by the Respondent and the Respondent’s identity and business practices. With this available information and when the Complainant’s submissions are considered as a whole, the Panel finds, on balance, that the Complainant ought to have known that it could not establish the bad faith registration condition. Still, following obtaining this information, the Complainant submitted a number of supplemental filings counting unsuccessful arguments regarding its post-trademark transfer allegation and settlement offers that could reasonably be considered low. Moreover, the Panel notes that two relevant facts have been inserted into the case file with the Complainant’s supplemental filings. First, the Complainant stated that it made an unsuccessful offer to buy the disputed domain name at the beginning of 2026 (therefore, ahead of the filing of the Complaint). The Complainant did not disclose the amount of its offer. Second, the email communication dated March 25, 2026, sent from the email address confirmed by the Registrar as the one for the Respondent, shows that the priority of the disputed domain name has been brought to the Complainant’s attention. The same email communication includes a message from February 2025 via a third-party platform with an offer to buy the disputed domain name for USD 100, which appears to originate from the Complainant’s parent firm. In the Panel’s view, these facts indicate that the Complaint has been filed following an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from the Respondent without a plausible legal basis.
Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff Patentanwälte und Rechtsanwalt PartG mbB represented Katek AG, and John Berryhill represented Pace.
