.biz company maliciously hijacked .com domain name dispute case analysis

In the online world, the ownership and use of domain names is of paramount importance. In this article, we will analyze a typical domain name dispute case: a .biz company attempted to hijack a .com domain name. It involves the determination of malicious dispute, analysis of the complaint situation, the basis of reverse hijacking, as well as the analysis of the complainant's behavior, revealing the complexity of the dispute behind the domain name malicious hijacking issue.

1. Domain name hijacking issues

-.biz attempted to hijack the .com domain name, which was registered long before the company was founded.

2. Dispute Decision

- A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel ruled that a dispute filed by a financial data company against EagleData.com was filed in bad faith.

- The disputed domain name is registered by Eagle Data Singapore, which uses the domain name EagleData.biz.

3. Complaint Analysis

- The Complainant's complaint, which was filed using the World Intellectual Property Organization's Online Complaint Form and the Model Complaint Form of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, appears to be relatively weak. The problem is that the Complainant filed the complaint long after the domain name had been registered and did not allege that the domain name had changed hands since registration.

4. Basis for finding reverse hijacking

- In finding that a domain name has been reverse hijacked, Panelist Jeremy Speres noted that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Model Complaint provides (in red) that “[n]otice that bad faith registrations are generally considered possible only if the registration of a domain name occurs prior to the creation of your trademark rights, see WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.8]”. Section 3.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0]”.

- Spereswrote (pdf) Thus, either the Complainant was aware of the nature of the bad faith claim and chose to submit the complaint knowing that it was unlikely to succeed; or the Complainant submitted the complaint recklessly without proper consideration of the documents relied upon. Both situations are reprehensible.

5. Complainant's knowledge

- The Complainant expressly recognizes in the Complaint that the Disputed Domain Name has been in the hands of the Respondent since at least 2003, and therefore the Complainant knew that the Disputed Domain Name had been registered long before it acquired the trademark rights.

6. Results that should have been known to the Complainant

- In this case, the Complainant knew, or at least should have known, at the time of filing the Complaint, that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the Policy, in particular, that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name apparently predates by many years the Complainant's incorporation, application, and registration of the trademark.

7. Domain Name Owner Response

- The domain name owner has not responded to the dispute.

Source: domainnamewire