Business Magazine

Spy Optic, Inc. Guilty Of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking On SpyOpticsOutlet.com

Posted on the 11 October 2013 by Worldwide @thedomains

In A one member UDRP decision Spy Optic, Inc. of Carlsbad, California, United States of America, represented by the law firm Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker has been found guilty Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on SpyOpticsOutlet.com.

The panelist, Richard G. Lyon, took the complainant and its council “out to the wood shed”  over the complainant in which it cut and pasted language from another UDRP filing on another domain name SpyOpticsOutlet.org, owned by another person, into this complaint.

The panel was not happy and found RDNH although the domain holder didn’t respond.

The entire findings of the original decision was in bold type.  I don’t know if that was meant by the panelist but I’m assuming so.

Here is what the panel had to say on the issue of RDNH:

“”The Complaint contains assertions that might easily have been included to mislead the Panel, a separate circumstance justifying RDNH.

The most egregious of these is the allegation in paragraph V.B.3 of the Complaint that “The disputed domain name spyopticsunglasses.org [sic] is used in marketing and selling various sunglasses through its website under Complainant’s registered trademarks.

Thus the disputed domain name is used for commercial purposes.”

Nothing in the Complaint or the WhoIs database or anything else this Panel can find ties this second web address or the content at that website to the Respondent, yet the quoted language in that clause includes the most serious charge in the Complaint.

And in the very next sentence of the Complaint the Complainant goes on to assert that “The disputed domain name is used to induce Internet users to purchase products that falsely appear to be Complainant’s goods, but actually compete directly with the Complainant’s goods.”

The fact that this Complainant filed a separate UDRP complaint against a different respondent involving this second domain name1 may explain, though not excuse, the reference to the unrelated (so far as the evidence shows) domain name in this proceeding. Perhaps the quoted clause was cut and pasted from the other complaint. “

“Such a practice makes things worse for the Complainant or its representative and cannot be squared with the certification required by paragraph 3(b)(xiv) of the Rules. And the fact that the Complainant is represented by counsel makes matters worse still. “

“After a dozen years’ Policy cases a professional who signs a pleading in a Policy proceeding should be familiar with Policy practice.


Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog

Magazines