A panelist slams a software company for a blatant attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.
A French software company has been found guilty (pdf) of misappropriation of a reverse domain name in a cybersquatting dispute.
Enodo filed the lawsuit against enodo.com, a domain that was registered in 2020. The company was just founded last year.
In its dispute, Enodo argued that the domain name is “the most effective domain name” for its own use.
That’s about the only part of his argument that he got right in that completely wrong UDRP.
The company attempted to purchase the domain before filing the UDRP, making it a “Plan B” reverse domain name hack. According to the Respondent, here is the pre-litigation correspondence:
(a) An email from the Complainant dated April 27, 2021 stating: “Hello, I want to use Enodo.com for a side project. Is it available for sale?”
(b) A response from the Respondent dated April 28, 2021 stating: “I am not interested in selling at this time.”
(c) A response from the Complainant of the same date stating: “OK, let me know if you change your mind.”
(d) Another email from the Complainant (not dated) stating: “I want to know if you are now available for sale enodo.com? I can offer you $500 for this.
Upon discovering the reverse domain name hijacking, World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Steven Maier wrote:
In light of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered more than 20 years before the Complainant either existed or applied for the ENODO trademark, the Complainant’s misrepresentation that the term ENODO had no meaning in any language (Complainant could certainly have checked before making this submission and certifying it as true), and clear evidence of its dealings with Respondent seeking to purchase the disputed domain name, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant initiated this proceeding in bad faith, in what is known as a “Plan B” scenario, having failed in its attempts to negotiate a purchase of the disputed domain name from Respondent. Further, given that the Complainant is legally represented, the Panel finds this to be a particularly egregious case of attempted reverse domain name hijacking.
LS Avocats represented Enodo. This appears to be the second UDRP he filed, and he lost them both.