Charity technology provider makes ridiculous arguments in a UDRP.
It’s fitting that WIPO just published a UDRP decision for networkofgiving.com (and .org) on #GivingTuesday.
The complaint was filed by Edatanetworks Inc., a company that provides customer loyalty technology and counts charities as its clients. It claims to have used the “Network of Giving” marks since about 2007…two years after the current registrant of the corresponding domain names registered them.
The current registrant started a non-profit and used the domain names for many years, although it seems it has since shut down.
Here are some of Edatanetworks’ head-scratching arguments, submitted by its law firm Norton Rose Fulbright LLP:
The disputed domain names were renewed by the Respondent on May 21, 2015, in association with a corporation “Network of Giving” whose corporate status is “terminated”. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith in association with a corporation that no longer appears to exist. This is a clear attempt to mislead the Panel.
The “renewed in bad faith” argument. Sigh. Making matters worse, the complainant somehow thinks renewing the domain name despite closing down the charity is an attempt to “mislead the panel”, as if the domain name owner somehow foresaw that a frivolous complaint would be filed against the domain name.
Multiple attempts to contact the Respondent through the contact details shown on the WhoIs listing have been unsuccessful. Such tactics to conceal a registrant’s true identity were found to amount to evidence of bad faith in other UDRP cases.
Just because someone doesn’t respond doesn’t mean they tried to conceal their identity. I think the lawyer here confused the whois privacy argument.
The Respondent breached section 4 of the domain name Registration Agreement by not providing up to date and accurate information in relation to the Respondent corporation, which is listed as “terminated”. Accordingly the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith in association with a corporation which no longer exists.
Breaching the registration agreement doesn’t matter for a cybersquatting complaint. And this somehow suggests bad faith?
The fact that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s entire distinctive trade mark also supports a finding of bad faith. Such use of the Complainant’s trade mark creates an absence of any plausible good faith use.
Dude, your complaint includes proof that the domain name was used in good faith!
The Respondent’s inactivity amounts to bad faith use as it is not possible to conceive of any plausible use that would not be illegitimate such as by constituting passing off, an infringement of consumer protection laws or of the Complainant’s trade mark.
Oh, dear. Worthy of a Domain Dunce award?
Another Reply says
The Respondent better hope that Bruce Meyerson is not picked for the case. He wouldn’t blink an eyelid before giving the Complainant the domain name.
John Berryhill says
“Dude, your complaint includes proof that the domain name was used in good faith!”
You’d be surprised how often that happens.
It’s why I always ask “let me see the Complaint” when someone contacts me about a UDRP proceeding. Sometimes, responding is as simple as pointing out what the Complainant has already said.
Michael H. says
I think you mean “ridiculous”, not “rediculous”.
Andrew Allemann says
Amazingly, my two levels of spell checkers didn’t catch that.
Demetrious says
Why no RDNH?
The Complainant for the networkforgiving.com UDRP case is Edatanetworks Inc. of Edmonton, Canada, represented by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Canada.
“The Complainant’s registered trademarks are all dated 2008 and its earliest claimed use of the mark was in 2007.” “The Complainant concedes that the disputed domain names were registered in 2005.”
In another recent UDRP case of newforests.com (New Forests Asset Management is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker):
“In the case at hand, the Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by a Counsel who knew or should have known, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, that it could not prove at least one of the essential elements required by the Policy, namely the Respondent’s bad faith registration, as the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates the creation and first use of the Complainant’s trademark.”
In this UDRP case of networkforgiving.com Complainant is represented by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP. As legal Counsel surely Norton Rose Fulbright LLP would have known or should have known, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, that it could not prove at least one of the essential elements required by the Policy namely “as the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates the creation and first use of the Complainant’s trademark.”.
So why did Adam Taylor “Given these facts, the case must fail as the disputed domain names could not conceivably have been registered in bad faith. “ not find RDNH as in the newforests.com UDRP case?
In fact, Adam Taylor didn’t even discuss it.