Name cybersquatting claims result in reverse domain name hijacking — Two personal

Domain investors successfully defend UDRP cases with the help of well-known domain attorneys.

Czech Arbitration Court published two reverse domain name hijacking decisions today. Both cases involved personal name domains owned by domain name investors.

Schwanhäußer Industrie Holding GmbH & Co.KG, which owns a biking accessories firm called Gonso, filed a dispute against gonso.com. The firm uses gonso.de for its website.

Germanium World LLC, which sells domains at DomainShop.com, stated it purchased the domain name since it’s a common person’s name. It cited many examples of firms and people with the name.

The Complainant submitted a relatively weak complaint, and the panelist noted that it failed to establish even a prima facie case that the domain owner lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Panelist María Alejandra López García ruled for the domain investor on rights and legitimate interests and the question of registration and use in bad faith.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, she wrote:

In addition to the facts and circumstances of this case, in July 2020 the Complainant contacted the Respondent indirectly, to potentially explore the buyout of the disputed domain name. Still, giving the price of the disputed domain name, estimated in $24,500, the negotiation did not advanced. Instead, the Panel notes that, almost 4 years following, the Complainant decides to submit a sort of “empty” Complaint, with mere supporting evidence, avoiding the resources available on the CAC’s website, performing intentional substantial omissions, “presumably in an effort to acquire the disputed domain name with minimal cost”.

Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions represented the domain name owner.

In the other case, Italian stone and marble firm Alimonti S.r.l. filed a dispute against alimonti.com, which is owned by domain investment firm eWeb Development Inc.

eWeb Development stated it purchased the domain since it’s a common surname and pointed to many other surname domains it owns.

As with the other case, the Complainant first reached out to the domain owner regarding acquiring the domain, received a price it didn’t like, and then filed a dispute.

Panelists Alan Limbury, Gregor Kleinknecht, and Douglas Isenberg found in favor of the domain registrant on both rights and legitimate interests and the question of registration and use in bad faith.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, they wrote:

Here, Complainant admits the Alimonti name is “a family name”; a cursory web and/or trademark search would have identified numerous uses of the Alimonti name by those unassociated with Complainant; Complainant’s own annex contradicts Complainant’s argument that the Disputed Domain Name “does not resolve to any web site”; Complainant has provided no evidence that Respondent has targeted Complainant; Complainant provided incomplete details regarding Respondent’s offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name; and a number of previous decisions under the Policy have denied transfers under similar circumstances. Furthermore, Complainant was represented by counsel, and section 4.16 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “Given the undertakings in paragraphs 3(b)(xiii) and (xiv) of the UDRP Rules, some panels have held that a represented complainant ought to be held to a higher standard.“ In light of all of these factors, the Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted to engage in RDNH.

Danilo Martucci of Tonucci & Partners represented the Complainant, and Zak Muscovitch represented the domain name owner.