T-shirt printing company attempts to reverse hijack two domain names

Recently, a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP) panel ruled that T-shirt printing company PrintflyCorporation attempted to reverse hijack two domain names. Here are the details of the case:

1. The domain names in dispute

Printfly filed a dispute with the UDRP claiming that the domain names rushordertees.co and rushtees.com were registered by a competitor and arguing that the domain names were taken in bad faith.

2. Time gap between trademark and domain name registration

Printfly owns the RushOrderTees trademark, but the trademark was registered after the two domain names were registered. This fact had a significant impact on the dispute resolution process.

3. Descriptiveness of the Terms

The Panel of Three noted that the term RushOrderTees is one of the more common descriptive terms in the t-shirt printing industry, and that it could not be shown that the term was registered in bad faith.

4. Ruling on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The UDRP panel ruled against Printfly, despite the fact that Printfly failed to provide sufficient evidence that the domain names were registered in bad faith or that the domain owners lacked a legitimate interest. The panel found that this was a Plan B-style reverse domain name hijacking case, where Printfly filed a domain name cybersquatting claim after it failed to successfully purchase the domain names.

5. Background of the Domain Name Transaction

Printfly attempted to purchase the .co domain name back in 2017, but failed to accept the price offered by the domain owner.

6、Represented by lawyers

Printfly is represented by Sophie Edbrooke of GerbenPerrott,PLLC, while the domain owner is represented by Jason Schaeffer of ESQwire.com,PC.