Real estate firm tries Plan B reverse domain name hijacking

Firm neglected to inform panel regarding its attempts to buy the domain name.

A UDRP panel has found that real estate management firm Leumas Residential, LLC tried to reverse domain name hijack leumas.com.

Leumas Residential sent many emails to the owner of the domain between 2008 to 2022, trying to buy the domain. The domain owner, Leumas Advisors LLC, declined to sell.

The panel noted that Leumas Residential didn’t mention the many emails it sent to the domain owner regarding acquiring the domain name.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:

The Panel finds that the present case is a classic Plan B case, in which Complainant initiated UDRP proceedings following unsuccessful attempts to purchase the disputed domain name in order to force the transfer of the disputed domain name. Complainant pursued the Respondent’s principal to purchase the disputed domain name by sending more than a dozen emails to his “@leumas.com” email address as well as to his official government account. The Panel finds that Complainant misrepresented the facts by failing to mention these communications in its Complaint and by stating that the disputed domain name is not being used, despite receiving at least one email from the “@leumas.com” email address in which Respondent clearly stated that the disputed domain name was not for sale. The Panel also observes that Complainant filed its application for the LEUMAS mark regarding 10 years following this communication from the Respondent’s principal. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant knew or ought to have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The above circumstances support a finding of reverse domain name hijacking…

The panel also wrote, “While this arbitration Panel is not permitted to award costs and fees, Respondent may choose to pursue other remedies under applicable law.”

A panel rarely suggests that a Respondent might want to pursue penalties, which shows the level of conviction that it was a bad case.

Leumas Residential was represented by one of its managing directors. Gerald M. Levine represented the domain owner.