Ohio firm tries to hijack domains from IBM
Panelist admonishes firm for filing bad cybersquatting dispute.
Hubris? Narcissism? Just plain ballsy?
I’m unsure how to describe it, but the result isn’t surprising: an Ohio firm was found to have tried to reverse hijack the domain names resource.com and resourceinteractive.com. From IBM.
Resource Interactive, a Salesforce implementor that uses the domain name resourceinteractive.net, filed the case against the technology giant.
IBM purchased the domains when it bought Resource/Ammirati in 2016. Resource.com does not right now resolve and resourceinteractive.com forwards to a page on IBM.com.
The Complainant wasn’t even founded in 2019. Yet it argued that the domains are right now being used in bad faith.
It was an easy case for UDRP panelist Ivett Paulovics to decide. Ivett determined that the case was filed in bad faith in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking:
In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has engaged in RDNH and that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, constituting an abuse of the UDRP. Complainant clearly ought to have known that it could not succeed on any of the three required elements, counting:
1. Complainant’s lack of common law trademark rights;
2. Complainant’s clear knowledge of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, given that the Disputed Domain Names were purchased in good faith prior to Complainant’s incorporation and continue to be used in good faith; and
3. Complainant’s clear knowledge of the absence of Respondent’s bad faith, as the Disputed Domain Names were purchased ahead of Complainant’s asserted common law trademark rights and are being used legitimately.
Despite bearing the burden of proof, Complainant has failed to present any substantive evidence to establish standing in this proceeding or to demonstrate that Respondent acted with bad-faith intent to target Complainant or disrupt its business. The Complaint was filed without a plausible legal basis.
Complainant cannot justify its actions by claiming ignorance of the Policy or well-established UDRP case law. While parties are free to represent themselves in UDRP proceedings, they must also accept the consequences of failing to seek appropriate legal counsel. This is particularly relevant given that the Policy has been in place for 25 years and UDRP panel decisions are publicly available.
Paul Proffitt represented the Complainant. As stated by his LinkedIn profile, he’s a board advisor to Resource Interactive. An in-house IP attorney represented IBM.
