Inpact S.A., of Chile lost its attempt to grab the domain name inpact.me in a UDRP based on a Chilean trademark on the term “impact”

Although the panel found the Complainant did not even “provide evidence to demonstrate prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, the 2nd element of the UDRP it just dismissed the case rather than find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

Actually the lazy panelist Andrea Dawson, didn’t even discuss the third element of the UDRP bad faith or RDNH

The decision was published in spanish and we used Google Translate

Here are the highlights:

“Claimant owns two trademarks containing the name INPACT in Chile. Specifically, Chilean brands do not. IMPACT 797.416 HNL, with registration date September 29, 2007, and no. 834.797 INPACT neuromarketing INTEGRAL, with record date November 25, 2008.

The domain name in dispute was registered on October 27, 2011.

In accordance with the allegations contained in the Complaint, the domain name in dispute included so prior to the filing of the Complaint a platform aimed at obtaining funding for projects social support through a system of collective financing, commonly called “crowfunding”.

“The second requirement of the Policy requires the applicant, the evidence that has available, please provide evidence to demonstrate prima facie that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. The plaintiff has to prove the above with credible claims supported by evidence and evidence considered sufficient to establish a particular conclusion. Having tasted the complainant prima facie lack of rights or legitimate interests of the defendant, it is for the latter to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Claimant has presented as evidence a copy of the deed of incorporation of your company, a copy of their records of domain names, copies of certificates of registration of marks which holds a copy of the .ME Policy and Regulation, and finally copies of certain related services provided by the Claimant documents.

The only two test documents presented by the Applicant in relation to the Respondent is the WhoIs domain name in dispute and copy of the registration certificate of the Defendant Inpact.me SpA with the Registry of Commerce.

Now, the Applicant makes a number of allegations and accusations Demand concerning both the Respondent and the use that it makes of the domain name in dispute, but does not provide any evidence to support such allegations. It is important that every applicant be aware that it is not enough simply to mention the cases of lack of rights or legitimate interests, it is necessary that such claims are supported by evidence, factual allegations that, if true, allows the expert to conclude desired legal.

Claimant mentions that Respondent to use the name prior to being notified of this controversy domain, but without accompanying pictures of the website, which ultimately is not known whether this use was legitimate or not, since or the applicant itself specified. So also it mentions that currently the Respondent uses the name “Inpact.me” on Facebook and Twitter, but unfortunately without accompanying any evidence of this use.

Claimant then states that the Respondent offers products and services under the name “Impactme” and is presented as a platform aimed at obtaining financing social aid projects through “crowdfunding” as well as other services that enables communication between entrepreneurs and businesses.

In conclusion, under the scant documentary evidence provided by the Claimant and its claims, it is difficult to this expert concluded that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute.

Moreover, with the allegations made and Internet links provided by the applicant itself, at first sight is possible to conclude that the Respondent before any notice of the dispute, effectively used the domain name in connection with an offer of good faith service, and is also commonly known as “Impactme” – Your company name under the Copy Enrollment Registry of Commerce of Santiago contributed annexed to demand – as it is introduced and presented in the websites and links mentioned by the applicant itself in the Complaint.

It is not necessary to analyze the third element in the policy in any case, Claimant offers no evidence to support his allegations of bad faith.”