Complainant to modify its case to snag domain registered in 1995 — Panelist asks
Domain wasn’t registered in bad faith, but panelist asks complainant to make a different argument.
I’m dumbfounded.
A single member UDRP panelist with National Arbitration Forum has ordered the domain name VideoLink.com be transferred — following, apparently, asking the complainant to modify its argument to the panelist’s liking.
VideoLink, Inc. stated it started using the VideoLink term in commerce in 1999. Xantech Corporation registered the domain name in 1995, so the respondent could not have registered the domain name in bad faith.
Some complainants have argued that the relevant date for registration in a UDRP is when a domain name is renewed. In other words, a domain name can be renewed in bad faith. Only a handful of panelists have accepted this view.
But in this case, as stated by panelist Bruce Meyerson’s decision, he actually asked the complainant to make this argument so he could order the domain name transferred.
C. Additional Submission
At the request of the Panel pursuant to Rule 12, Complainant provided an Additional Submission contending that the UDRP analysis ought to occur not when Respondent originally registered the domain name but when Respondent renewed the domain name in June 2010.
Xantech did not respond to the UDRP. Had it done so, perhaps it wouldn’t have lost the domain name. But it shouldn’t have lost the domain name under any circumstances given its date of registration. And, as stated by Meyerson’s written decision, he asked the complainant to provide an additional submission in order for Meyerson to transfer the domain name on a generally rebuked policy interpretation.
Amazing.
