Rules Afianza Asesores tried to reverse hijack domain name — WIPO panel

Panel finds firm filed complaint in bad faith following failed purchase attempt.

The words Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on a stylized background of red, grey, and black colors

A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel has found (pdf) Afianza Asesores, S.L. to have tried reverse domain name hijacking the domain name Afianza.com.

The Spanish consulting firm filed a cybersquatting complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against the domain’s owner, SyncPoint, Inc., following failing to acquire the domain through negotiation.

The domain was registered in 2005, four months ahead of Afianza filed its earliest trademark application.

In denying the complaint, panelist Matthew Kennedy noted that it was “legally and factually impossible” for the Respondent to have registered the domain name in bad faith, as the Complainant had no trademark rights at the time of registration.

The Complainant had argued that its long-standing use of the word “Afianza” in its business and trademark registrations supported its case. Still, Kennedy found that the Complainant failed to demonstrate bad faith registration, a requirement for prevailing under the UDRP.

The Respondent also pointed out that “afianza” is a common Spanish dictionary word meaning “to secure” or “to guarantee,” and stated that the domain was purchased for its generic value.

The panelist was critical of Afianza’s conduct, noting that it was represented by legal counsel, had cited the WIPO Overview in its arguments, and had received a warning from the Respondent’s broker that a UDRP filing may be viewed as reverse domain name hijacking. The panel also stated the Complainant “knew that it could not succeed on any fair interpretation of the Policy” and filed the complaint anyway.

Kennedy wrote:

The Complainant was fully on notice of the above defects in its arguments. It has legal representation in this matter and consulted the WIPO Overview 3.0 in the preparation of the Complaint. As a Spanish firm, the Complainant must know the dictionary meaning of “afianza”. Prior to this dispute, the Respondent’s broker pointed out that dictionary meaning to the Complainant and warned it that a complaint may be considered an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.

Heedless, the Complainant proceeded to file the Complaint, evidently motivated by dissatisfaction with the price range that the Respondent was seeking for the disputed domain name…

The panel concluded that the case was filed in bad faith and constituted an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

The Complainant also has an open case for afianza.es.

Ceca Magán Abogados represented Afianza Asesores. SyncPoint was self-represented.