Denied, but how is it not RDNH? — Movius.com UDRP
This is a pretty blatant “Plan B” UDRP filing.
Movius Interactive Corporation of Johns Creek, Georgia, represented by Smith Risley Tempel Santos LLC, has failed in its UDRP attempt against the domain name Movius.com.
The domain name is owned by branding firm Dynamo.com, which registered the domain name many years ahead of the complainant started using the mark.
From the get go, this seemed like a reverse domain name hijacking case. Consider that panelist Robert A. Badgley stated the crux of the complainant’s case was this paragraph:
Precluding a finding of bad faith on the part of the Respondent simply since the Complainant began using its trademarks following the original registration of the disputed domain by the Respondent enables purveyors of cybersquatting models to scrape the valuable .com top level domain for as yet unused domains and stockpile them for little investment in the hopes that one or more of the domains will result in a windfall sale sometime in the future. Such speculative registration efforts are abusive and run counter to the spirit of the Policy, if not in direct violation of it.
It would seem the complainant’s lawyer isn’t very well versed in UDRP.
Following noting that the domain name was registered well ahead of when the complainant had rights in the mark, Badgley wrote:
As such, even those ardent adherents to the principle that a domain name registrant is under some type of affirmative duty to ensure that a prospective domain name would not violate another’s trademark rights could not quarrel with Respondent’s conduct in this case.
Badgley then blasts the complainant for trying to invoke the Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows case:
Complainant’s attempt to liken this case to the seminal decision in Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, borders on the risible.
Risible means laughable.
and…
Although the Telstra case, like this case, involved “passive use” of a domain name, Telstra is so distinguishable from the instant case that it is ought to be obvious. For starters, the TELSTRA mark was established ahead of the subject domain name was registered. Further, the TELSTRA mark was undoubtedly famous, whereas the record in this case is devoid of any attempt to show, much less an actual showing, that the MOVIUS mark is famous.
Following calling this claim laughable and obviously incorrect, considering that the complainant tried to buy the domain ahead of filing the UDRP, and given the timeline of the domain registration, wouldn’t you think Badgley would find Movius to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking? Nope.
“The Panel declines to find that this misconceived Complaint was brought in bad faith, and hence the Panel makes no finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.”
That finding is risible.
