EUIPO attempts to reverse domain hijacking, but legality questioned

At the intersection of domain name management and intellectual property, a recent action by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has sparked widespread attention and controversy. The EUIPO, an important institution responsible for trademark registration management within the EU, has been accused of attempting a reverse domain hijacking.

The incident originated from a domain name squatting complaint filed by the EUIPO against the domain name "epta-agency.com" under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The agency filed the complaint on the basis that the domain name was associated with the business of sending misleading invoices to trademark registrants.

Despite the disclaimer of relevant purposes on the invoice, many people who received the notice still misunderstood that they had to pay.

However, although this situation seems inappropriate, it does not meet the criteria for domain name squatting, so the filing of this UDRP case is controversial.

In handling this case, the EUIPO mainly relied on its own and the EUIPO's trademarks. But this approach exposed two key problems.

1. The registered trademark it relies on was registered after the domain name was registered

According to relevant regulations, in this case, the agency needs to rely on common law rights to support its claims, however, it failed to provide any evidence to prove that these rights were created earlier than the domain name registration time.

2. Even if we ignore the order of registration, from the perspective of the similarity between the trademark and the domain name, the two do not have similar features sufficient to support a domain name squatting complaint.

Neil Brown of the Czech Arbitration Court, as a member of the team in this case, clearly pointed out that the case had defects from the beginning and had malicious intentions, which was a typical reverse domain name hijacking behavior. In this incident, Schönherr Rechtsanwälte GmbH participated on behalf of EUIPO, and the domain name owner did not respond.