French Jewelry Maker Loses Lawsuit Over Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Recently, a case involving reverse domain name hijacking has attracted a lot of attention. French jewelry manufacturers A. Augis and Arthus Bertrand filed a lawsuit against the domain name augis.com, accusing its owner, Mira Holdings, of taking possession of the domain name through improper means. However, the final decision was not in favor of the complainants, with the court finding the case to be reverse domain name hijacking and issuing a verdict against them.

Background of the Case

Mira Holdings is a company that registered the domain name augis.com, stating that the domain name was registered for investment purposes. The company noted that augis.com was a commonly used name and had the potential for widespread use. Although jewelry manufacturers A. Augis and Arthus Bertrand filed a complaint based on trademark rights, Mira Holdings denied that it registered the domain name in bad faith, stating that the domain name does not directly conflict with any registered trademarks.

Litigation Developments and Key Details

The case entered the legal phase shortly after the initiation of the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) process, when Mira Holdings filed a lawsuit in the Arizona state court asking the judge to issue a confirmatory judgment and the World Intellectual Property Forum (WIPO) to reject the UDRP's request for a ruling.

In the process, however, complainants A. Augis and Arthus Bertrand omitted a crucial detail from their case, an oversight that ultimately became a key factor in losing the case. It turned out that Mira Holdings had been the former registrant of the Domain Name and had relinquished its rights to the Domain Name in 2013. This fact was not mentioned in the Complainant's original filing and was not explained in the supplemental filing. Panelists expressed outrage at the Complainant's concealment and noted that this practice put the integrity of the case in serious jeopardy.

Ruling and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

In the end, the Panel ruled that the case was reverse domain name hijacking, that Mira Holdings was found to have no bad faith, and that the Complainant's behavior constituted an attempt to improperly solicit a domain name. The Panel noted that the Complainant withheld material information from the case, misquoted legal precedent, and failed to provide compelling evidence to support its claim.