You can’t just take Prive.com — Sorry ThePrive.com
Firm fails to grab domain name through UDRP.
The operators of the sample sale website Privé, online at ThePrive.com, have lost a UDRP against the domain name Prive.com. This is despite the respondent not filing a formal response.
There are a number of reasons the complaint failed, counting that Privé is a generic term. But the panelist explained in great detail how badly the complainant’s lawyers screwed up, too.
Prive.com was registered back in 1996, well ahead of the complainant was in business. The domain has changed hands since then, but the complainant didn’t bother to figure out when:
If it is the Complainant’s case that the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name following the Complainant had purchased rights in the name “Privé”, then it is the Complainant’s responsibility to make this argument and supply supporting evidence. This is typically done by means of archive WhoIs printouts showing evolution of ownership of the disputed domain name. Still, the Complainant does not even address the issue of when the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name, let alone supply supporting evidence. The Complaint must therefore fail on this ground alone.
The complainant also claimed the domain was parked with PPC ads at one point, but didn’t provide any evidence. It seems that the panelist felt the complainant tried to mislead the panel on some matters, although panelist Adam Taylor did not find reverse domain name hijacking:
Still, the Complaint skirts carefully around the issue of the Respondent’s usage of the disputed domain name. Although the Complainant refers to the Respondent’s former use of the disputed domain name on a number of occasions, it does not explain exactly what that usage was. It seems unlikely that the Complainant, which has engaged in a number of trademark skirmishes with the Respondent and which has evidently gone to the trouble of getting itself onto the Respondent’s mailing list, is unaware of the nature of the Respondent’s former business at the disputed domain name. The Panel suspects that the Complainant has avoided the subject since to reveal it would suggest that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of a business unrelated to the Complainant and its area of trade, perhaps one referable to the generic meaning of the disputed domain name. In any event, there is no evidence ahead of the Panel indicating any illicit usage of the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent.
The complainant’s lawyers definitely failed to put the best case forward, but it seems it still would have lost with all of the facts laid out.
