But this organization wasn’t very charitable — It’s #GivingTuesday
Charity technology provider makes ridiculous arguments in a UDRP.
It’s fitting that WIPO just published a UDRP decision for networkofgiving.com (and .org) on #GivingTuesday.
The complaint was filed by Edatanetworks Inc., a firm that provides client loyalty technology and counts charities as its clients. It claims to have used the “Network of Giving” marks since regarding 2007…two years following the current registrant of the corresponding domain names registered them.
The current registrant started a non-profit and used the domain names for many years, although it seems it has since shut down.
Here are some of Edatanetworks’ head-scratching arguments, submitted by its law firm Norton Rose Fulbright LLP:
The disputed domain names were renewed by the Respondent on May 21, 2015, in association with a corporation “Network of Giving” whose corporate status is “terminated”. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith in association with a corporation that no longer appears to exist. This is a clear attempt to mislead the Panel.
The “renewed in bad faith” argument. Sigh. Making matters worse, the complainant somehow thinks renewing the domain name despite closing down the charity is an attempt to “mislead the panel”, as if the domain name owner somehow foresaw that a frivolous complaint would be filed against the domain name.
Multiple attempts to contact the Respondent through the contact details shown on the WhoIs listing have been unsuccessful. Such tactics to conceal a registrant’s true identity were found to amount to evidence of bad faith in other UDRP cases.
Just since someone doesn’t respond doesn’t mean they tried to conceal their identity. I think the lawyer here confused the whois privacy argument.
The Respondent breached section 4 of the domain name Registration Agreement by not providing up to date and accurate information in relation to the Respondent corporation, which is listed as “terminated”. Accordingly the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith in association with a corporation which no longer exists.
Breaching the registration agreement doesn’t matter for a cybersquatting complaint. And this somehow suggests bad faith?
The fact that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s entire distinctive trade mark also supports a finding of bad faith. Such use of the Complainant’s trade mark creates an absence of any plausible good faith use.
Dude, your complaint includes proof that the domain name was used in good faith!
The Respondent’s inactivity amounts to bad faith use as it is not possible to conceive of any plausible use that would not be illegitimate such as by constituting passing off, an infringement of consumer protection laws or of the Complainant’s trade mark.
Oh, dear. Worthy of a Domain Dunce award?
