Blood donation startup’s domain claim was reverse hijacking attempt: Panelist

Zape Technology, operator of WeDonate.io, lost its claim for WeDonate.co.uk.

A firm that rewards people for donating blood has tried to reverse hijack a domain name, a Nominet panelist has ruled (pdf).

Zape Technology Ltd, which operates a business called WeDonate at WeDonate.io, filed the dispute against WeDonate.co.uk.

The firm first tried to buy the domain name for $1,000 but was rebuffed. It then filed a cybersquatting claim.

The problem for Zape was that the registrant purchased the domain name ahead of the firm existed, meaning the registrant could not have targeted it with the registration.

Panelist David Taylor wrote:

The Complainant appears to advance the argument that upon being made aware of the Complainant’s existence, the Respondent had an obligation to divest itself of the Domain Name at a price set by the Complainant. This perspective is fundamentally at odds with the Respondent’s business model of trading in domain names that are composed of dictionary terms – an activity that is recognized as lawful under the Policy itself.

Taylor further found that the case was an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking for five reasons:

1. The Complainant initially concealed the fact that its trademark rights postdated the registration of the Domain Name.
2. The Complaint disregards clearly-worded provisions of the Policy, notably paragraphs 5.2 and 8.4, as detailed above. Instead, the Complainant appears to rely on principles of trademark law that contradict the wording of the Policy.
3. It ought to have been clear to the Complainant that the Complaint would not succeed, given the timeline of events and the lack of evidence of bad faith registration by the Respondent.
4. The Complaint was filed following a failed attempt to purchase the Domain Name from the Respondent, commonly referred to as a Plan-B Complaint, supporting the inference that the Complaint was brought as an alternative means to acquire the Domain Name following unsuccessful negotiations, rather than on a genuine basis of alleged Abusive Registration.
5. The Complainant’s failure to pay for the decision further underscores a lack of genuine intent to resolve the dispute through the proper channels.