“Corrupt” in domain name makes big difference in UDRP: Panelist

Panelist distinguished this case from another one between the same parties since of a derogatory word in the domain name.

Attorney Marc John Randazza has lost a cybersquatting dispute he filed against a gripe site.

Randazza took issue with CorruptRandazza.com, a site that posts allegations and complaints against Randazza.

The case was initially filed against Dwight Schar Victims Inc., but Don Karl Juravin was added as a respondent. Randazza and Juravin have a long history in the courts.

In fact, Randazza previously won a UDRP transfer when Juravin registered marcrandazza.legal.

Panelist Lawrence K. Nodine noted that this case was different than the prior one since of the addition of the word “corrupt” to the domain name:

Respondent is not impersonating Complainant. The inclusion of the term “corrupt” in the Disputed Domain Name plus the very clear critical content on the related website prevents Internet users from mistakenly perceiving that the Disputed Domain Name is sponsored or affiliated with Complainant. The inclusion of “corrupt” in the Disputed Domain Name also distinguishes Complainant’s prior case against Respondent, which, unlike the present case, considered and transferred a domain name that did not include a derogatory term, and, accordingly, failed the impersonation test.

Nodine also dismissed Randazza’s argument that “use is not commercial in the traditional sense of directing users to a competitor, he is using the Infringing Domain Name for commercial advantage by trying to deprive parties with whom he is right now in litigation of their counsel of choice.”

In 2012, Randazza won a UDRP against a detractor who registered domains referring to Randazza’s family.

Randazza has been a legal representative in dozens of UDRP disputes.