NameSilo

Clothing company tries to reverse hijack domain name

Labeled as legal in Domain Industry News started by Soofi, Apr 25, 2019.

Replies:
7
Views:
996

  1. Soofi

    Soofi Top Member PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,524
    Likes Received:
    5,144
    Company was “factually misleading” and committed “egregious overreaching”.

    Brooksburnett Investments Ltd, which sells clothing under the Incanto brand, has been found to have committed reverse domain name hijacking in a dispute over the domain Icanto.com.

    The company uses the domain name Incanto.eu.

    A three-person World Intellectual Property Organization panel did extra research to figure out if the Complainant was providing the entire truth. It decided that the Complainant didn’t show that the domain owner registered the domain in bad faith and didn’t prove that the owner lacked a legitimate interest in the domain.

    Amusingly, the Complainant pointed to another UDRP filed against the domain owner as proof that he was a cybersquatter–but the panel in that case found in the domain owner’s favor.

    The panel wrote:

    The Complainant’s first Supplemental Filing acknowledges that the “Complainant began to optimize the business recently, began to increase the efficiency of assets. The Complainant has plans for the US market, so drew attention to the problem of respective domain names and filed this Complaint.” This does seem to be a “Plan B” filing, after the Complainant recently tried without success to purchase the Domain Name from the Respondent some 16 years after the Respondent added the Domain Name to his portfolio. The Complaint made sweeping assertions about the Complainant’s business and trademark rights and recognition that simply did not match the facts in 2003 when the Domain Name was registered and offered little or no evidence to support its claims for the “worldwide” fame of the trademarks in 2003. It required two rounds of Supplemental Filings and additional research in public record sources for the Panel to reconstruct the circumstances in 2003. The Complaint was factually misleading and had little prospect of establishing bad faith in particular, given the very limited and localized use of the mark in 2003 by the Complainant’s predecessor in interest and the generic meaning of the term “incanto”. The Complainant contended repeatedly, with no basis, that this was a “coined” term associated distinctly with the Complainant. Arguing the Respondent’s “pattern” of bad faith based on a UDRP decision that actually found in favor of the Respondent is simply one more example of the egregious overreaching in the Complainant’s approach to this proceeding.​

    Article source: DomainNameWire.com
     
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. Soofi

    Soofi Top Member PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,524
    Likes Received:
    5,144
    My opinion: RDNH serves the Brooksburnett Investments Ltd, right. There should be a strong penalty levied on such miscreants IMO
     
  3. john_karr

    john_karr Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    327
    Selling price just went up for Incanto.com.
     
  4. Soofi

    Soofi Top Member PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,524
    Likes Received:
    5,144
    I wouldnt be surprised if the domain owner went "MANN" on the domain name pricing after UDRP win :-D
     
  5. tonyk2000

    tonyk2000 Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    1,692
    A good decision. No doubts.

    (quote begin)

    W. Scott Blackmer
    Presiding Panelist

    Gabriela Kennedy
    Panelist

    The Hon Neil Brown Q.C.
    Panelist

    (quote end)

    Panelists Gabriela Kennedy and The Hon Neil Brown Q.C. were both selected by the parties. One party selected Gabriela Kennedy and another party selected The Hon Neil Brown Q.C. Imho, each genuine respondent should be happy to see either of these panelists, as they are both known to be _really_ unbiased and I think never tried to support TM holders by default. I am wondering what did the complainant, or their representative, think about? They might at least assign somebody who tends to support complainants and TM holders. Yes such panelists do exist (unfortunately), and they tend to work like a "mad printer" in favor of the Complainants.
    Maybe @jberryhill can add something, how could this unusual selection happen?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
  6. DomainRecap

    DomainRecap Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    2,327
    It makes you wonder how these Corporate Shill panelists (with high-90% or even 100% pro-complainant records) maintain their status year after year.

    Is there no requirement to at least feign being unbiased, or can you give the domain away, and then immediately try to get the complainant as a client?
     
  7. tonyk2000

    tonyk2000 Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    1,692
    I've seen a case once with such a panelist (ok, not the panelist himself, but his company /legal entity/) acting as Complainant's representative (!). The Complaintant was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by a group of three honest panelists. So, for some panelists, UDRP is just another way to get more clients. Sometimes, they are successful. Or, sometimes, they fail and miserably (good to know).
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2019
  8. Soofi

    Soofi Top Member PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7,524
    Likes Received:
    5,144
    Tony, that word "sometimes" is scary as best it could get because it shouldnt happen at any time until and unless its a clear BAD FAITH & TM INFRINGEMENT case imo
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
Topics / Tags:
NameWorth
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...