This allegation also rests on the premise that the Complainant itself has a genuine need or intention to register the disputed domain name.

In fact, the evidence before the Panel now shows the opposite: namely that Complainant had actually owned and then subsequently abandoned the disputed domain name. The failure of the Complainant to disclose and explain its conduct is inexcusable.

The domain holder was represented by Jason Schaeffer of ESQwire.com, P.C.

The three member panel was Christopher J. Pibus, The Hon Neil Brown Q.C., and Sandra A. Sellers.

Here are the highlights

The Complainant owns the domain name and has operated a website in association with the provision of credit-card and debit-card payment processing since August 15, 2001.

The disputed domain name was originally created on March 7, 1997, and was subsequently owned by the Complainant, but not renewed. The disputed domain name was acquired by the Respondent at auction on or about June 12, 2015.

At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to a website which offered the disputed domain name for resale, and contained links to third party websites.

These circumstances, combined with the evidence provided by the Respondent discussed below, cast a different light on the Respondent’s conduct than what has been alleged by the Complainant. The Respondent has provided important evidence on two points: (1) as a Korean resident, he states that he was not aware and had “no knowledge of Complainant, its website, its business name or trademark” when he purchased the disputed domain name at auction; and (2) he explains that his purchase was part of a legitimate business strategy to acquire “a desirable common word domain name”, evidenced by his prior registrations of similar domain names such as , , , , and .

The Complainant’s attempts to characterize the Respondent’s conduct and intentions as abusive are not borne out by the evidence. Given that the disputed domain name was abandoned by the Complainant, and sold through auction, it was inappropriate to claim that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant and deliberately engaging in predatory typosquatting. In the circumstances, the Respondent’s explanations carry more weight with the Panel than the Complainant’s accusations.

In the Panel’s view, for purposes of the analysis under the Policy, the Respondent has provided sufficient evidence to refute the Complainant’s case on the absence of legitimate interests.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

After reviewing all the evidence, the Panel has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has failed to disclose a number of material facts, including (1) its prior ownership and subsequent abandonment of the disputed domain name, (2) the eventual purchase of the domain name at auction by the Respondent; and 3) that the Complainant attempted to partially base its trademark rights on a cancelled registration. This non-disclosure has been compounded by the Complainant’s aggressive pleadings, which repeatedly characterize the Respondent’s conduct in a manner which is not consistent with the actual circumstances at hand.

The Panel identifies two specific examples where Complainant has made unfounded allegations which it ought not to have advanced in these proceedings: (1) intentional typosquatting; (2) holding the domain name “to prevent Complainants [sic] from registering it”.

With respect to typosquatting, the Complaint makes the following allegation: “it is clear that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is intentionally designed to cause deception, mistake and confusion among consumers seeking information with regard to the services of Complainant. The slight difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s IPAYMENT Mark, which fails to form a new term but merely creates a variant of Complainant’s domain name, strongly suggests that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to engage in ‘typosquatting’.”

These allegations ignore the fact that the Complainant itself had used the disputed domain name for a number of years and had then apparently taken a decision to abandon it. It is difficult to understand how the Complainant can make this objection when its own conduct – in allowing the disputed domain name to be put up for auction – has facilitated the acquisition of the disputed domain name by an unrelated party (the Respondent). If predatory typosquatting was to be alleged, then full background information ought to have been provided to the Panel about prior ownership and the decision to abandon the disputed domain name.

With respect to the allegation of intentional interference with the Complainant’s ability to register the disputed domain name itself, the allegation is as follows: “Given the considerable presence of Complainants [sic] in the credit card and debit card processing industry, it is evident that Respondent also registered and is holding the disputed domain name to prevent Complainants [sic] from registering it…”. However, the Complainant did previously register the disputed domain name, and was not prevented from doing so. Now it chose not to renew the registration. Consequently, the Respondent is not holding the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from registering it.

In fact, the evidence before the Panel now shows the opposite: namely that Complainant had actually owned and then subsequently abandoned the disputed domain name. The failure of the Complainant to disclose and explain its conduct is inexcusable.