Case over generic domain name denied.
A National Arbitration Forum panelist has rejected a company’s claim to the domain name MyHealth.com.
My Health, Inc registered its mark for “My Health” in 2009. But the registrant of the domain name acquired it prior to that (in 2007) for $150,000. Making matters worse, when My Health, Inc filed its complaint it thought that the respondent had owned the domain name since way back in 1995. Regardless of which date you choose, the complaint must fail because there was no way for the registrant to register it with the non-existent (at the time) trademark holder in mind.
Another interesting aspect to this case is that the panelist brings up the issue of reverse domain name hijacking even though the respondent didn’t request it — but then declines to find RDNH because it wasn’t requested:
It appears from the facts of this case that Complainant established its business and trademark rights while aware that the disputed domain name was already registered by another entity. Indeed, it appears that Complainant brought this arbitration proceeding only after negotiations to purchase or join with Respondent failed. Lastly, as noted above, Complainant has alleged bad-faith registration notwithstanding the fact that it did not even exist (or own any trademark rights) at the time of Respondent’s registration.
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides inter alia that the Panel may find that the Complainant brought an arbitration proceeding “in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or . . . primarily to harass the domain-name holder.†… However, the Respondent has not alleged Reverse Domain Hijacking and the Panel declines to make this determination where the parties have not raised the issue or been given the opportunity to brief the Panel on their respective positions.
A panelist does not need a party to raise the issue of RDNH in order to rule on it. But the fact that he brings it up in his decision shows his opinion on the matter.
Tom / Domaining365 says
Glad to see what appears to be common sense and calendars coming into play a little more often in these decisions. It’s unfortunate that reverse domain hijacking wasn’t alleged from the start, but I think inclusion of that comment sends a clear message that future panels are willing to turn the tables and punish those guilty of trying to abuse the system and essentially steal a domain. Bravo.
todaro says
i don’t get it. is there any punishment for reverse domain hijacking? i think not. if there was it would come to an end.
Tom / Domaining365 says
True, “punish” is way too strong a word since there is indeed no punishment metered out by the panel…just my wishful thinking and my fingers typing too fast. Being involved in a UDRP process costs real dollars though, especially if you hire your own representation through the process, not to mention the time, energy, resources, preparation, etc. At some point a Reverse Domain Hijacking decision is going to be worth something, even if all that means is you know have documentation to potentially go on your own legal offensive to recoup some $$$.
Stephen Douglas says
QUESTION NEVER ASKED BEFORE:
Why is it that some companies suddenly realize the value of a domain when somebody else owns it?
Jerry Russell / Floname says
It’s unfortunate that the panel didn’t pursue RDNH in lieu of previous negotiations between the complainant & domain name owner having failed. This is a clear & blatant attempt and obviously recognizable. The panel shouldn’t need to be coaxed by the respondents to call a rat a rat. If there were to be punishment for RDNH, it should be in the form of monetary damages to the domain owner.