Domain owner forced to defend himself twice despite unchanged facts.
A company that sells an organic fertilizer has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking after filing a UDRP for the second time.
GBI Prosperities Pty Ltd. and Dr Grow It All Sales Pty Ltd. filed the UDRP against the owner of doctorgrowitall.com and drgrowitall.com. The domains are registered by a former business associate.
One of the complainant’s principals, Danny Hood, filed a UDRP over DrGrowItAll.com in 2013. He represented himself, and the panelist in that case noted that Hood really phoned it in. The panelist said the complaint “barely” met the qualifications of a UDRP filing.
The complainants said there were a few reasons it should be able to refile the case. One is that the second domain was added. Another is that it wasn’t represented by counsel the first time and that its initial case was so poorly presented it should have been rejected as an invalid case. The third is that the complainants are different because the first time it was an individual and now it’s a company.
The facts of the case did not change between the two filings.
Panelist Warwick A. Rothnie noted that the respondent had to defend himself twice thanks to the refiled complaint, and found the complainant to have filed the dispute in bad faith.
This case might make for a new type of RDNH category at RDNH.com — refiling cases.
Source: http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/29/company-guilty-reverse-domain-hijacking-refiling-case/
A company that sells an organic fertilizer has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking after filing a UDRP for the second time.
GBI Prosperities Pty Ltd. and Dr Grow It All Sales Pty Ltd. filed the UDRP against the owner of doctorgrowitall.com and drgrowitall.com. The domains are registered by a former business associate.
One of the complainant’s principals, Danny Hood, filed a UDRP over DrGrowItAll.com in 2013. He represented himself, and the panelist in that case noted that Hood really phoned it in. The panelist said the complaint “barely” met the qualifications of a UDRP filing.
The complainants said there were a few reasons it should be able to refile the case. One is that the second domain was added. Another is that it wasn’t represented by counsel the first time and that its initial case was so poorly presented it should have been rejected as an invalid case. The third is that the complainants are different because the first time it was an individual and now it’s a company.
The facts of the case did not change between the two filings.
Panelist Warwick A. Rothnie noted that the respondent had to defend himself twice thanks to the refiled complaint, and found the complainant to have filed the dispute in bad faith.
This case might make for a new type of RDNH category at RDNH.com — refiling cases.
Source: http://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/29/company-guilty-reverse-domain-hijacking-refiling-case/
