JetGo guilty of RDNH following filing “seriously misleading” case against Frank Schilling
Australian charter jet firm didn’t give the full story to WIPO panel.
Frank Schilling’s Name Administration has successfully defended another UDRP filed against one of its domain names. The three person UDRP panel also found the complainant guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
JetGo Australia, an airplane charter firm, filed the complaint over the domain name JetGo.com.
This is a classic case of a firm adopting a firm name in which the .com was by now registered, but then claiming it was registered in bad faith. The panel determined that it was impossible the domain was registered in bad faith to target JetGo, which at the time had yet to select “JetGo” as its brand.
The reverse domain name hijacking charge came regarding since JetGo tried to mislead the panel with evidence showing that Name Administration offered to sell the domain name. JetGo omitted the full communication between the parties, which showed that it was JetGo that wanted to buy the domain name and Name Administration was merely responding to its offer:
The Panel considers that the Complaint filed in this case was brought in bad faith, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding, on the basis that it is seriously misleading. In particular, the Complaint fails to set out fully facts that were fundamental to the Complainant’s case and of which the Complainant had knowledge – namely, the Complainant’s unsolicited initiation and renewal of communications with the Respondent regarding possible purchase of the disputed domain name. By failing to state these facts, the Complaint makes an implied assertion that is false – namely, that the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for a substantial sum was unsolicited by the Complainant. This false assertion might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refuted this implied assertion. To knowingly make a false implied assertion on a material issue is evidence that the Complaint was brought in bad faith. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case on a material issue is without basis when the Complainant must have known this fact.
JetGo was represented by Sparke Helmore Lawyers. Name Administration was represented by John Berryhill.
