Expert panel determines that Amexio.com has a reverse domain name hijacking dispute

Recently, a piece of news disclosed by the World Intellectual Property Organization expert group triggered heated discussions. Michelios 3 and France's AmeXio were involved in disputes related to the domain name amexio.com and were suspected of reverse domain name hijacking.

It is reported that the focus of the conflict points to Canada's eWeb Development Inc., against which Michelios 3 and AmeXio have filed lawsuits. eWeb Development Inc. is deeply involved in the field of after-sales domain name services and web development solutions, and has registered a large number of domain names similar to amexio.com and many brand domain names.

During the trial of the case, the expert team conducted rigorous verification and found that the complaining party had significant problems. In terms of trademarks, one of the companies involved in the complaint applied for a trademark at the same time as the domain name registration, but has not yet completed the registration and is only in the status of pending approval. The expert group pointed out that this information is easily misleading, and the complainant cannot provide proof of use before trademark application, so the basis for the appeal is insufficient.

Regarding the domain name sale offer, the complainant’s statement was contrary to the facts. In fact, eWeb Development Inc.’s sale offer was in response to the complainant’s inquiry, but the complaint material confuses right and wrong, saying that it “intends to sell the disputed domain name to the complainant” and also cuts out the key content of the attached screenshot to cover up the truth. The full version is in the response The book attachments are available.

After in-depth study and analysis, the three expert groups concluded that the complainant's series of actions constituted a "Plan B" type of reverse domain name hijacking, that is, after the first domain name purchase failed, the complainant attempted to use UDRP to achieve its purpose.

In this case, Legal In Motion (LEGALiM) represented the complainant and Muscovitch Law PC provided legal support to the domain name owner. This judgment provides an example for handling domain name disputes and serves as a wake-up call for similar disputes in the industry. Follow-up developments from all parties deserve continued attention.

Source: domaining