Inc. tries to reverse domain name hijack eCourier.com — Soft Trust
Domain name was registered well ahead of the Complainant was incorporated.
The Canadian operator of a secure file transfer service called e-Courier has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking for the domain name eCourier.com. The firm uses e-Courier.ca for its website.
Soft Trust Inc. filed a cybersquatting complaint against the domain name with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Soft Trust was incorporated in 2004 and its E-Courier rights would have postdated that. The domain name was registered in 1997.
The Complainant made a number of seemingly conflicting statements regarding when it believed the Respondent purchased the domain name. These are quotes WIPO panelist John Swinson included in his decision that represent Soft Trust’s arguments:
“The website at the Disputed Domain Name has displayed a message stating “Sorry! This site is temporarily unavailable.” since at least September 2001”
“The Complainant is unsure of the exact date that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name but it appears to have been at some point between September 14, 2005, and December 17, 2015. This is following the date on which the Complainant accrued rights in E-COURIER.”
“It appears the Disputed Domain Name was originally registered by a third party and that the Respondent did not register the Disputed Domain Name until 2012 at the earliest.”
Swinson clarified the Complainant’s position:
“The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was transferred from the Respondent individual (Todd Hinton) to the Respondent firm (Ikebana America LLC) at some point between September 14, 2005, and December 17, 2015, and that this constitutes a fresh registration of the Disputed Domain Name.”
But it is clear that Hinton and the firm are essentially one and the same. This means that the Respondent registered the domain in 1997, well ahead of the Complainant was in business.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking Swinson listed eight facts that easily showed that Hinton and Ikebana were one and the same and that the Complainant ought to have known this.
It also turns out that a representative of the Complainant contacted the Respondent on three occasions between 2007 and 2011, offering to buy the domain. The Respondent declined each time. The complainant didn’t include this correspondence in its complaint.
Merizzi Ramsbottom & Forster represented the Complainant. The decision does not list counsel for the Respondent.
