A bold UDRP case fails: SoBold.com
Panelist rules the domain was not registered and used in bad faith.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found (pdf) against So Bold Limited in its UDRP case against sobold.com, but stopped short of finding reverse domain name hijacking.
So Bold Limited filed the case against VirtualPoint. Panelist John Swinson found that the Complainant failed to show that VirtualPoint registered and used the domain in bad faith. The case itself is relatively straightforward, but there are some interesting things that are worth mentioning.
1. The Complainant previously tried to buy the domain under false pretenses. Swinson argued this is not relevant to whether the case was filed in bad faith, even though the failed purchase attempt is pertinent to whether or not it’s a Plan B reverse domain name hijacking case, as VirtualPoint argued.
2. So Bold Limited filed for a trademark following VirtualPoint purchased SoBold.com in an expired domain auction and following its initial attempt to purchase the domain was rebuffed. The firm existed ahead of the auction but did not show that it ought to have been well-known to VirtualPoint.
3. The Complainant tried to show that the Respondent had a history of bad activity but confused VirtualPoint founder David Lahoti with his brother. (Making it more confusing, Swinson refers to David Lahoti as “Daniel” Lahoti throughout the case.)
4. Following So Bold Limited filed the dispute, Lahoti put up a gripe site regarding the Complainant, counting the pre-complaint correspondence. The Complainant submitted this in a supplemental filing, arguing it was relevant to the case. Swinson noted that this site was created following the case was filed, so it has no bearing on whether the domain was registered in bad faith.
5. VirtualPoint drafted a lawsuit to file against So Bold Limited and published this on its gripe site. Still, it has not filed the lawsuit.
Carstens & Cahoon, LLP represented So Bold Limited. Lewis & Lin, LLC represented VirtualPoint.
