Business Magazine

Bergzeit GmbH Owner Of Bergzeit.de: Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Posted on the 18 September 2013 by Worldwide @thedomains

Bergzeit GmbH of Wooden Churches , Germany , represented by lawyers Riegger , Ludwigsburg, Germany  has been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name Bergzeit.com by a one member WIPO panel.

Bergzeit translates into Mountain Time in German.

The UDRP decision was published in German.


The complainant is the owner of the domain name <bergzeit.de> and offers in this since 2000 , among other equipment and clothing for mountain sports and outdoor activities.

The complainant is the owner of the German trademark No. 302009071549 MOUNTAIN TIME ” , which was registered on 08/12/2009 for goods in Classes 8, 24 , 25 and 28 and registered on 15.07.2010 , and the Community trademark No. 10,694,801 MOUNTAIN TIME , on the 02.03. 2012 has been registered for goods in Classes 8 , 9, 18 , 20, 22 , 24, 25 and 28 and registered on 01.08.2013 (hereinafter called the ” MOUNTAIN TIME marks”) .

The disputed domain name was used in 2003 in connection with an English-language website where announced the opening of an online shop for mountaineering equipment and a contact address in the United States was given.

The Panel also notes that the complaint was put forward and a case of the unfair called reverse domain name hijacking ( RDNH ) is present .

RDNH is defined in the UDRP Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name” .

In the present case , the appellant knew that the registration of the domain name is already done in 2000 , which was nine years before the first registration mark of the complainant.

The complainant has neither alleged nor proved that at the time of registration of the disputed domain name passed in favor of the complainant rights to the characters MOUNTAIN TIME .

Moreover, the complainant has failed to present the correspondence with the Respondent from the years 2006 and 2007 , in which the Respondent is the Managing Director of the appellant offered the disputed domain name for free transfer.

There are also some doubt as to the correctness of the information submitted to the complainant. As a result, the tribunal assumes that the success of this method were obviously hopeless from the start , which suggests that the appeal was argued abusive (see Consuela , LLC v. Alberta Hot Rods , NAF Case No.


Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog