FileSense, Inc. represented by Ronnie Allen Sheppick of Utah just lost its 2nd UDRP this year on the domain name FileSense.com.
Back in March 2013, we covered this same company’s attempted to grab this same domain name away from the same domain owner.
The domain name owner has now defended two UDRP on the same domain per se, (without the representation of an attorney) so he didn’t have to incur legal fees but has now spent a lot of time defending a domain he got for $350 on the drop.
While not finding Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, HallofShame.com might want to start another section for company’s that bring two or more UDRP’s on the same domain name.
In that first case the one member UDRP panel found in favor of the domain holder said FileSense, Inc. did not have a trademark & misrepresented facts to the panel:
“The first question that arises is whether Complainant has a trademark or service mark on which it may rely”
“Complainant claims that it has a registered trademark, i.e. a trademark registered with the USPTO, namely trademark No. 85, 779,926, registered on November 15, 2012.”
“That statement is incorrect”
“Complainant has in fact only filed an application, which is now pending, for the FILESENSE mark
“Complainant appears to have been incorporated in Delaware on November 2, 2012. The Domain Name was registered on December 9, 2010 and acquired by Respondent on January 16, 2013.”
“Complainant filed its application for a trademark on FILESENSE on November 15, 2012.
“At that time, it claimed a first use in commerce from November 16, 2011.”
“It has not yet been registered.”
“Accordingly, on January 16, 2013, when Respondent acquired the domain name, Complainant did not have rights in a registered trademark and apparently does not have such rights today.”
“If Complainant was incorporated in Delaware on November 2, 2012, by whom was the trademark FILESENSE used in commerce from November 16, 2011 until November 2, 2012?”"
In August of 2013, FileSense, Inc went for a 2nd bite at the apple, by filing this 2nd UDRP and lost again, this time appearing to want to blame the current domain holder for the acts of the previous domain holder.
Although now the complainants trademark was registered the panel still found the domain holder had rights to the domain and did not engage in any bad faith
“The Complainant previously submitted a complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) on January 31, 2013, contesting Respondent’s registration of the <filesense.com> domain. That complaint and a response by the Respondent were considered by the NAF in FileSense, Inc.…
