Bold UDRP Case Fails – Domain Name Wire

The panelist states that the domain was not registered and was used in bad faith.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist found (pdf) against So Bold Limited in its UDRP case against, but refrained from finding reverse domain name hijacking.

So Bold Limited sued VirtualPoint. Panelist John Swinson found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that VirtualPoint registered and used the domain in bad faith. The case itself is relatively simple, but there are some interesting things worth mentioning.

1. The Complainant previously attempted to purchase the domain under false pretences. Swinson argued that this is irrelevant to whether the case was filed in bad faith, even though the failure of the attempted purchase is relevant to whether or not it is a case of Plan B reverse domain name hijacking, as argued by VirtualPoint.

2. So Bold Limited filed a trademark application after VirtualPoint acquired in an expired domain auction and after its initial attempt to purchase the domain was rebuffed. The company existed before the auction but did not show that it should have been well known to VirtualPoint.

3. Plaintiff attempted to show that Respondent had a history of bad activity, but confused VirtualPoint founder David Lahoti with his brother. (Making it more confusing, Swinson refers to David Lahoti as “Daniel” Lahoti throughout the case.)

4. After So Bold Limited filed the dispute, Lahoti set up a complaint site on the complainant, including pre-complaint correspondence. The plaintiff submitted it in a supplemental filing, arguing that it was relevant to the case. Swinson noted that this site was created after the case was filed, so it has no bearing that the domain was registered in bad faith.

5. VirtualPoint has drafted a legal action against So Bold Limited and posted it on its complaint site. However, he did not file a complaint.

Carstens & Cahoon, LLP represented So Bold Limited. Lewis & Lin, LLC represented VirtualPoint.