The National Arbitration Forum finds that Red Hat filed a cybersquatting complaint to harass the domain name holder.
Red Hat, an IBM subsidiary software company, was found guilty of attempted reverse domain name hijacking.
The company filed a cybersquatting complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against WeMakeFedora.org.
Fedora is open source software sponsored primarily by Red Hat but created by a community. Red Hat has a trademark for Fedora.
Software Freedom Institute SA has registered WeMakeFedora.org to create a blog (and blog aggregator) on Fedora. According to the ruling, it was created after Red Hat’s official Fedora news site censored some content contributions. WeMakeFedora.org includes some of these censored messages.
WeMakeFedora.org includes a disclaimer and links to the official Fedora download site.
Basically, the UDRP decision notes that Red Hat consented in an email exchange to the use of the domain just days after it was registered, provided Software Freedom Institute SA complied with Red Hat’s trademark guidelines. . But in his UDRP filing, he claimed that he did not authorize the use of the domain.
This was enough for National Arbitration Forum panelist Alan Limbury to find legitimate rights or interests in the domain and reverse the domain name hijacking. He wrote:
Although Complainant consented, the day after Respondent registered the domain name, to Respondent’s use of the domain name for a website, so long as Respondent complied with Complainant’s instructions in with respect to trademarks, the Complaint does not contain any assertion that the Respondent failed to comply with these guidelines. Instead, the Complaint asserts that the Complainant did not consent to the use of the domain name by the Respondent and that the Respondent’s adoption of a name that is substantially identical to the Complaint’s trademark to offer or discuss software and software design and development services does not constitute any right or legitimate interest in the domain name on the part of Respondent.
In light of these circumstances, the Panel finds that Complainant initiated this proceeding when it had clear knowledge of Respondent’s legitimate rights or interests in the domain name and that the proceeding was initiated primarily to harass the registrant. of the domain name.