- Impact
- 3,028
http://www.demys.net/news/2003/04/29_2e.htm
Links:
Open World Inc v Domains BVI
29th April, 2003
In a decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) issued today the perils of inaccurate contact details in domain name management were again made plain.
In Open World Inc v Domains BVI the Complainants were seeking transfer of the domain name 2e.com. But this was no ordinary cybersquatting case - the original registrants of the name were the Complainants themselves (and their predecessors in title). The Complainants alleged that the Respondent had become the registrant of the name by a fraudulent scheme - one that Demys has warned about for some time.
Essentially, the Complainants or their predecessors had maintained the registration of 2e.com but had failed to renew a different domain name - commerceint.net - which served as the registrar's email contact address for 2e.com.
The Complainants alleged that the Respondent registered commerceint.net, set itself up with an email account to match that on the registrar's records for 2e.com and then 'authorised' a transfer request to move 2e.com elsewhere. Having succeeded in a transfer, it would have been easy for the new registrant to change the registration details and point the domain name elsewhere.
The Complainants stated that following the allegedly fraudulent transfer, they could no longer service their customers’ websites and both they and their customers had been irreparably damaged. The Complainants had also entered into negotiations with the Respondent to re-acquire the domain name but when these failed (despite reaching agreement on a price of $1,500) they began the UDRP process.
So how did they get on? Regular readers of Demys.net know that the UDRP is like a three round boxing match - the complainant must win on points in all three rounds. Round one is the trademark round.
The Complainants stated that they had unregistered or common law trademark rights in the name - the panellist accepted this. In round two the Complainants had to show that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the name. Again they were successful as the Respondent had not used the domain name, had put it up for sale on an auction site and most importantly had obtained it by fraud. Finally, in the bad faith round, the Complainants said that the domain name had been registered and used in bad faith - the panel agreed.
Links:
Open World Inc v Domains BVI
