WIPO panelist lets “misconceived” complainant off the hook: Wow

WIPOs panelists are going soft on obvious cases of reverse domain name hijacking.

I’ve written regarding a few UDRP cases this stretch in which panelists let the complainants off the hook for reverse domain name hijacking. A decision out today for CQC.com is the worst example yet.

Clasen Quality Chocolate, Inc. of Madison, Wisconsin filed a UDRP against the three letter domain name. The domain name is owned by internet service provider Earthlink.

Earthlink got the domain name through an buyout LINC Internet Holdings, which had previously purchased a firm called ComQuest.

The chocolate firm reached out to Earthlink regarding buying the domain name. Earthlink’s counsel verified that the firm didn’t have anything connected to the domain anymore and stated the firm would consider offers. He noted that the firm has not sold any domain for less than $100,000.

Clasen submitted a $10,000 offer. Earthlink refused.

Then Clasen demanded the domain name for $1,500 and threatened to file a UDRP if Earthlink didn’t comply.

This is an incredibly obvious case of reverse domain name hijacking. Panelist Robert A. Badgley even states that it ought to have never been brought. But then he lets Clasen off the hook:

The Panel will refrain from finding Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in this instance since this Complaint appears, on balance, to be more misconceived than malicious in nature.

Was the complainant misconceived? Sure. But how can you say it wasn’t malicious? It’s a textbook case of that: give me the domain for $1,500 or I’ll file a UDRP.

And Clasen was even represented by counsel at the law firm Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren.

Unbelievable.