Flower Company Accused of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in Queen.com Dispute

In a significant ruling that underscores the principles of legitimate domain ownership, Knud Jepsen A/S, the Danish company known as Queen Flowers, has been officially found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). The decision came in a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaint they initiated against Rick Schwartz, a renowned domain investor, over the coveted domain name, Queen.com. This case highlights a critical aspect of domain dispute resolution, emphasizing that the UDRP is not a tool for opportunistic acquisitions or a substitute for failed negotiations.

The Contenders: Queen Flowers vs. The Domain King

The dispute pitted two distinct entities against each other, each with a strong connection to the word “Queen,” albeit in different contexts.

Queen Flowers: A Brand Seeking Expansion

Knud Jepsen A/S operates under the brand “Queen Flowers,” a well-established name in the floral industry, particularly known for its Kalanchoe plants. Their primary online presence is established through the domain name Queen.dk, catering predominantly to the Danish market and their international ventures. For years, the company had eyed Queen.com as a natural extension for their global brand, perceiving it as a premium asset that could significantly bolster their online reach and brand identity worldwide. Their pursuit of Queen.com stemmed from a desire to consolidate their brand under a universally recognizable and highly valuable domain.

Rick Schwartz: The Veteran Domain Investor and Owner of Queen.com

On the other side stood Rick Schwartz, often referred to as “The Domain King.” Schwartz is a legendary figure in the domain investing community, renowned for his foresight in acquiring and developing premium, generic domain names. He registered Queen.com in 1997, long before Queen Flowers gained international prominence or sought to expand its digital footprint globally. For over two decades, Queen.com has been a valuable asset in his extensive portfolio, representing a significant investment and a testament to the enduring value of short, memorable, and generic dictionary word domains. Schwartz’s business model revolves around identifying, acquiring, and holding such valuable digital real estate, often developing them or making them available for lease or sale at market rates. His ownership of Queen.com was a legitimate part of his well-established domain investment business.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Failed Acquisition Attempt

The seeds of the UDRP complaint were sown in 2015 when Queen Flowers first approached Rick Schwartz with an offer to purchase Queen.com. This initial contact was a standard business overture, with Queen Flowers expressing interest in acquiring the valuable domain to align it with their brand strategy.

However, the negotiation quickly hit an impasse over price. Schwartz, recognizing the immense value of a generic, single-word domain like Queen.com – a digital asset that holds inherent value for countless potential applications beyond a specific flower company – presented his terms. He offered the domain for an outright purchase price of $2 million, or a leasing option at $15,000 per month. These figures reflected what Schwartz considered fair market value for such a premium piece of internet real estate.

Queen Flowers, evidently unprepared for such a valuation, reacted with incredulity, reportedly responding, “Are you kidding me?”. This stark disagreement over pricing became the turning point. Unable to secure the domain at what they deemed an acceptable price, Queen Flowers embarked on what the UDRP panel would later identify as a “Plan B” strategy: resorting to a legal dispute under the UDRP. This move, as the panel determined, was an attempt to bypass fair market negotiations and leverage the UDRP system to acquire a domain they could not obtain through conventional means.

Understanding the UDRP and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is an administrative proceeding designed to provide a streamlined process for resolving disputes concerning the registration of domain names. It serves as a crucial tool for trademark holders to combat cybersquatting – the bad-faith registration of domain names that infringe on their trademarks.

For a complainant to succeed in a UDRP action, they must prove three cumulative elements:

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
The domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The failure to prove even one of these elements is fatal to a UDRP complaint. In the Queen.com case, the panel meticulously examined each of these criteria in relation to Schwartz’s ownership and Queen Flowers’ claims.

The Consequence: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) is a serious finding within the UDRP framework. It occurs when a complainant attempts to use the UDRP process in bad faith to improperly obtain a domain name from a legitimate owner. Essentially, it’s an abuse of the administrative proceeding, often seen when a party initiates a UDRP after failing to acquire a desired domain through negotiation, hoping the UDRP panel will award them the domain despite weak legal grounds. A finding of RDNH signifies that the complainant knew, or should have known, that they could not establish one of the three required elements for domain transfer.

The Panel’s Deliberations and the RDNH Finding

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel, after carefully reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, made several key observations that led to the resounding finding of RDNH against Queen Flowers.

Lack of Legitimate Grounds for Complaint

It became strikingly clear to the panel why the complaint failed on the crucial grounds of “rights and legitimate interests” and “registration in bad faith” concerning Rick Schwartz’s ownership of Queen.com.

Common Dictionary Word: The panel emphasized that “Queen” is a generic, common dictionary word. As such, it carries a multitude of meanings and uses, none of which are exclusively tied to a single entity, particularly in a global context. Schwartz’s ownership of a generic word domain, especially one registered long ago, is inherently legitimate as a digital asset.
Date of Registration: Rick Schwartz registered Queen.com in 1997. Queen Flowers provided no evidence whatsoever that Schwartz would have been aware of their specific company or brand at the time of registration. Indeed, Queen Flowers’ primary brand identity and international aspirations likely post-date 1997 significantly. This fact alone severely undermined the claim of bad faith registration, as bad faith typically requires knowledge of the complainant’s trademark at the time of registration.
Domain Investing as Legitimate Interest: The panel implicitly acknowledged Schwartz’s long-standing business as a domain investor. Owning and holding valuable, generic domain names like Queen.com is central to his legitimate commercial activity.

The “Plan B” Strategy and Omission of Key Facts

A critical factor in the RDNH finding was the panel’s observation that this was a classic example of a “Plan B” strategy. This term describes a scenario where a company attempts to purchase a domain name, and upon being dissatisfied with the asking price, subsequently files a UDRP complaint in an attempt to acquire the domain name through administrative means, effectively using the UDRP as a price-control mechanism or a tool for opportunistic recovery.

Moreover, the panel strongly criticized Queen Flowers for a significant omission in their complaint: they failed to disclose their prior purchase overture and the subsequent price dispute with Rick Schwartz. Such an omission is viewed very poorly by UDRP panels, as it suggests an attempt to mislead the panel and present an incomplete picture of the dispute’s history. Transparency is paramount in UDRP proceedings, and the deliberate withholding of material facts can significantly contribute to an RDNH finding.

Queen Flowers was represented by Patrade A/S, while Rick Schwartz was represented by the experienced domain law attorney Zak Muscovitch.

Rick Schwartz’s Vigorous Response and the Implications of RDNH

Commenting on the case, Rick Schwartz, known for his outspoken nature and staunch defense of legitimate domain ownership, did not mince words. His immediate and public reaction underscored the severity of the RDNH finding and the personal impact of such legal challenges on domain investors.

I get to call Frands Jepsen, Managing Director of Queen.dk and their attorney, Patrade A/S, Denmark, CONVICTED LOW LIFE THIEVES for eternity and do it in PUBLIC anytime I choose just like my friend from the saveme.com RDNH decision.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking THIEVES are nothing but low life cattle rustlers of the old west that got caught. In those days they would have been HUNG for their crimes! Wish the decision was a bit more detailed with a monetary penalty, but a big win, is a BIG win!! This was a BIGGIE!

And as promised, I now OWN their reputations and promise to make the public penalty much worse than any monetary one!

Schwartz’s strong language reflects a deep-seated frustration with companies that attempt to exploit the UDRP system. His reference to “cattle rustlers” draws a powerful historical parallel, equating the attempted domain hijacking with serious, reputation-destroying crimes. He also highlighted a previous case, saveme.com, where a similar RDNH finding was made, indicating a pattern of such abuses against legitimate domain owners. While UDRP panels do not award monetary penalties, Schwartz’s vow to “OWN their reputations” and make the “public penalty much worse than any monetary one” speaks to the significant reputational damage that an RDNH finding can inflict on a complainant and their legal representatives.

Lessons Learned for Brand Owners and Domain Investors

The Queen.com case serves as a crucial reminder for both brand owners and domain investors regarding the proper use and limitations of the UDRP.

For Brand Owners:

Due Diligence is Paramount: Before filing a UDRP complaint, brand owners must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure they have a strong case. This includes researching the domain’s registration date, the registrant’s business, and the generic nature of the word.
UDRP is Not for Failed Acquisitions: The UDRP is explicitly designed to combat cybersquatting, not to serve as a leverage tool for acquiring domains that could not be purchased at a desired price. Using it for this purpose can result in an RDNH finding.
Transparency is Key: All material facts, including prior purchase attempts and failed negotiations, must be disclosed in the UDRP complaint. Omitting such information is viewed negatively by panels and can contribute to an RDNH finding.
Generic Words Pose Challenges: Obtaining generic dictionary words through UDRP is notoriously difficult, especially if the domain was registered before the complainant’s trademark gained widespread recognition.
Proactive Domain Strategy: The best approach for brand owners is to secure relevant domain names early in their brand development, particularly key generic terms that align with their business.

For Domain Investors:

Reaffirmation of Legitimate Ownership: This case reaffirms the legitimacy of owning valuable, generic domain names as part of a domain investment portfolio. The UDRP is not intended to strip legitimate owners of their assets.
Importance of Representation: Having experienced legal counsel, such as Zak Muscovitch, is crucial for defending against UDRP complaints, especially when facing an RDNH situation.
Record Keeping: Maintaining clear records of domain acquisition, registration dates, and any related communications can be vital in defending against unjustified UDRP claims.

Conclusion: Upholding Integrity in Domain Dispute Resolution

The Queen.com UDRP decision against Queen Flowers is a landmark case that reinforces the integrity of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. It sends a clear message that the UDRP is a mechanism for combating genuine trademark infringement and cybersquatting, not a shortcut for acquiring domain names that prove too expensive in the open market. The finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Knud Jepsen A/S underscores the severe reputational and legal consequences for entities that attempt to abuse this administrative process. Rick Schwartz’s unwavering defense and subsequent public condemnation serve as a powerful reminder that legitimate domain owners have rights that the UDRP is designed to protect, ensuring fairness and upholding the principles of digital asset ownership in the global internet landscape.