Another UDRP panel has thrown out a complainant against a company which recently registered a trademark matching a domain registered 7 years earlier without even considering a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Never mind that the Complainant was Aponix Solutions LLC of New York, which was represented by in-house counsel Rajkumar Bakhru, could have just bought the domain name which was listed on Sedo with a Buy it now price of $6,000.
Instead the company elected to file a $1,500 UDRP to take the domain Aponix.com, which was registered over 7 years ago on July 24, 2007.
Darryl C. Wilson, the sole Panelist threw the case out finding that Complainant which just filed an application to register the mark APONIX on April 20, 2014, had no rights to a domain name registered 7 years earlier.
Duh.
“The Panel further notes that Respondent registered the <aponix.com> domain name on July 24, 2007, which is substantially before Complainant’s filing date of April, 2014. The Panel here finds that Complainant has not established rights in the APONIX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Because the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied (the first of three elements of the UDRP), the Panel declines to analyze the other two elements of the Policy.”
Done.
Money pocked by the panelist.
So you need prove three elements to win a UDRP, the most basic one is having a legal right to a domain name.
In cases such as these that are so merit-less that the Complaint is thrown out failing the first element that the panel does even feel it needs to deal with the other two elements a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking should be mandatory and the Complainant should be forced to pay all costs.
Its pretty clear to all of us and the panelist what happened here.
Company wants domain
Domain is long ago registered.
Domain is for sale for just $6K.
Company decides it doesn’t want to spend $6K
Company files for trademark
Company files a UDRP to basically steal the domain away from the lawful owner for a filing fee of $1,500.
Company has no case.
Case close.
Scam
Attempted theft
Nothing more, nothing less.
Something must be done about these type of cases.
For now it starts with the panelist at least putting the Reverse Domain Name Hijacking label on the company and its attorney.
Let us hope that the Respondent nowm makes the Complainant suffer by increasing price to say $20,000 + for their troubles. That is better than reverse domain hijacking ruling I would guess. Talking of these things, I received call from Lawyer today saying defendant to Court case wants secrecy on the settlement they are about to enter into. Told them they can go and get stuffed in that case , and they can if they wish. They know full well they will lose the case ,setting aside UDRP decision, and yet they want ” their cake and eat it”. Well they sure as hell aint going to eat my cake.
Darryl C. Wilson, sole panelist, threw the case out finding that Complainant had no rights to a domain name registered 7 years earlier, but Darryl C. Wilson didn’t even consider Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
As the above article states:
Company had no case.
Case closed.
Scam
Attempted theft
Nothing more, nothing less.
So why no Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision Darryl C. Wilson? Why?
Isn’t it a requirement of UDRP panelists that they consider RVDH, even if not asked?
Clearly UDRP panelists are unaccountable to state why they didn’t even consider an RDNH decision.
Is ICANN permanently asleep? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Yawn.