We just wrote about a guy who bought a domain name for $31,000, let it drop and lost a UDRP to regain control.
This time Intrac Group AB of Stockholm, just won the rights to the domain name intrac.com, from intrac.biz, who said they paid $21,500 for the domain.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the one member panel
The Complainant is the registered owner of a trademark for INTRAC in Sweden (Trademark No. 0372029), filed on July 5, 2004 and registered on May 6, 2005.
The Complainant operates websites at various domain names, including intrac.se and intrac.ee
The Complainant alleges that up until February 2013, when the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent, marketing was mostly done under the domain name intrac.com.
The Complainant contends that the domain name intrac.com had been registered by the Complainant since January 30, 2004, but, due to a mistake in early 2013, the fee for re-registration was not timely paid.
The Complainant contends that it tried to remedy the mistake as soon as it noticed that the fee was not paid but the Respondent had already registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant sent the Respondent a letter on May 8, 2013, two weeks after the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent, and objected to the registration.
The Respondent did not respond.
The Complainant sent a follow-up letter to the Respondent on August 22, 2013.
The Respondent failed to respond.
There appears to be two different registrants around the time of the Complaint filing.
The original registrant appears to have registered the domain name when the Complainant’s payment for the registration lapsed.
The original registrant did not respond to the Complaint.
Instead, when receiving a service copy of the Complaint on October 24, 2013 from the Complainant, he informed the Complainant that he had “already sold the domain at huge money to broker.”
The Respondent (second registrant) purportedly purchased the disputed domain name for USD 21,500.
Prior to making the purchase, the Respondent purportedly conducted a trademark search using the “iNEED Brand” website to determine if the name “intrac” was registered to anyone.
The Respondent contends that the results of that search showed that the name was not registered and provided a screenshot of the search result.
The Respondent contends that he has retained the services of Information Technology Links Col, LTD (“ITL”) to create a website for his company using the disputed domain name.…
