UDRP Poliedro.com: Domain investor received bad news via the UDRP process

[News]

Apparently, PPC links on the domain’s parked page pointed to the Complainant’s web site, triggering the UDRP filing.

The sole panelist at the WIPO referred to such action as a demonstration of “bad faith,” declining the Respondent’s request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and ordering the domain Poliedro.com to be transferred to the Complainant...

Read More

 

[tonyk2000]

Original source:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2022/d2022-1981.pdf

An unfortunate case with a number of omissions by all parties...

1. The Respondent provided a screenshot of a google search. "Bad faith" needs to proved on the domain registration date (2008) to begin with. One can hardly guess what search results were returned by Google in 2008, unless the Respondent actually saved the screenshot in 2008, and found it today, which is not too likely. So, why did the Respondent provide a screenshot (most likely of 2022 search results)? By providing it, and printing it horisontally, the Respondent complicated the things a lot:

The Panel notes that the said extract of a search over the Internet provided by the Respondent (Exhibit A to the Response), is printed horizontally containing just a few results in each of its pages and only two results in its first page. The Panel further notes that, contrary to the Respondent’s allegations, this search shows a reference to the Complainant and its website “www.sistemapoliedro.com.br” at the top of the second page

IMO, the Respondent here could simply quote something like this instead:

GLB Serviços Interativos S.A. v. Ultimate Search Inc (WIPO Case D2002-0189) - “Moreover, the Complainant could not realistically have expected that an entity in either the British Virgin Islands or in Hong Kong would necessarily have heard of a mark for a generic name used by a firm in Brazil. Accordingly, the Panel is prepared to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking

2. The Panelist is of opinion that

...the Respondent has not – especially after his search explicitly revealed the existence of third party trademarks of which the Complainant’s trademark is the very first one – set up negative keywords on the disputed domain name to avoid trademark-competing page 7 links.

Wrong. It is no more the case. Even with "fixed" links, G may still add any keywords it likes, for quite some time already . Respondent likely did not try to set fixed keywords though...

3. The Complainant provided a wrong screenshot (from .com.br domain) representing it as a screenshot from Respondents .com domain. So, the Complainant possibly elected to hide or replace the genuine parked page screenshot. The Respondent could try to use this fact in his favor, see, for example, Curb King Borderline Edging Inc. v. Edgetec International Pty. Ltd. (NAF Case FA0203000105892) finding that, when Complainant is aware of facts that bear a direct relation to the dispute and fails to include them in its Complaint, Complainant’s omission constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding, warranting a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. See also G. A. Modefine S.A. v. A.R. Mani (WIPO Case No. D2001-0537) finding that Complainant, by omitting several relevant facts that would have undermined its position, had brought the Complaint in bad faith, which constituted an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

4. In any case, it was the Complainant who signed up to adwords and configured his ads to appear on parked domains, in particular, on poliedro-related pages. No wrongdoing by Respondent. Did the Panelist (or the Respondent) notice this obvious fact?

So, the only lesson: always pay for 3-members panel, Yeah, it is additional $$$ - but 3 members panel could have decided in favor of the Respondent in this case....