French environmental consulting firm Blunomy Advisory loses case for "reverse domain hijacking"

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently issued an arbitration decision in a cybersquatting dispute, finding that a complaint filed by French environmental consulting firm Blunomy Advisory against a French man regarding the domain name blunomy.com constituted "reverse domain hijacking."

Blunomy Advisory claimed to own the "Blunomy" trademark in multiple countries and argued that the domain name was highly consistent with its company name and brand logo, potentially causing confusion. Therefore, it requested the transfer of the domain name. The company argued that its trademark rights were sufficient to establish prior use of the term and questioned the current owner's motives in registering the domain name.

The respondent, a French individual, registered the domain name before Blunomy Advisory acquired the relevant trademark rights. He explained that "blunomy" is a combination of "blue" and "economy," coined to represent the "blue economy" concept, an environmentally friendly economic concept that emerged in the 1990s. He provided multiple pieces of evidence, including the purpose of the registration and the brand concept, demonstrating that the registration had independent legitimacy and was not targeted at the company or its trademark.

After review, the Panel determined that Blunomy Advisory failed to demonstrate that the domain name registrant lacked legitimate interests or that the registration or use was in bad faith. The complainant failed to provide any evidence supporting prior trademark rights or that the registrant intended to mislead users. The decision stated that Blunomy Advisory's claim did not meet the UDRP standard of "bad faith in registration and use," and therefore dismissed the case.

Panel member Vincent Denoyelle further stated that this case constituted "reverse domain hijacking." He believed that the complainant, despite knowing that its rights were weak, initiated the proceedings, abusing the UDRP mechanism and attempting to obtain domain names to which it had no right through administrative means.