“Polydec.com” Domain Name Dispute: German Defendant Gets Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Ruling

The ownership and use of domain names in the Internet arena is often the subject of complex disputes. The “Polydec.com” domain name dispute is a typical case, involving numerous aspects of legal and commercial issues, which is worth exploring in depth.

I. Background Points

1. Domain name history:

Registered in 1998, acquired by a German company in 2013.

2.Complainant Situation:

Polydec SA of Switzerland claimed in 2018 to own the trademark rights to POLYDEC, which was founded in 1985, supplies precision parts to multiple industries, and owns related trademarks covering multiple categories.

3.Trademark situation: the relevant company in France used to have the trademark POLYDEC, the company was dissolved after the acquisition in 2013 and the trademark has expired.

Second, the focus of the dispute

1. Complainant's claim:

The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have a trademark and does not use the domain name, so it should transfer the domain name to itself; the domain name has not had a website for several years; the Respondent refused to transfer the domain name in bad faith because it did not respond to the letter; and it also alleges that the Respondent has a “cybersquatting” behavior.

2. Respondent's Response:

Panel's Decision

1. Procedural Issues

Delay in response:

The Panel accepts Respondent's late response due to employee absences, etc.

Supplemental Filing:

Supplemental filings by both parties do not indicate relevance, and the Panel refuses to accept supplemental filings other than the reasons for Respondent's delayed response.

2.Substantive Issues

-Similarity:

The disputed domain name is found to be identical or similar to the trademark to the point of confusion.

- Malicious Registration: The domain name was registered earlier than the Complainant's trademark right, the Complainant cannot prove that it was registered in bad faith, and the relevant claim lacks evidence to support it, this element is not established.

3. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH):

The Complainant is aware of the situation but has not effectively proved registration in bad faith, only according to the hopelessness argument, was found to be malicious complaint, constituting reverse domain name hijacking, the complaint is rejected.

Implications

1. Business Revelation:

Rights need to have sufficient evidence and basis, the acquisition of assets to investigate, management of domain names to be reasonable.

2.Domain name management and legal practice:

Emphasize the importance of time nodes, provide reference for the determination of reverse domain name hijacking, prompt all parties to use the procedure in good faith, and protect the healthy development of domain name field.