Andtech Corporation just lost its attempt to grab the domain name andtech.com from the domain owner Portmedia Domains/Portmedia Holdings Ltd which was represented by Ari Goldberger of Esqwire.com
The Complainant Andtech got its trademark on Christmas Day 2012.
The domain name owner registered the domain September 4, 2003.
The Complaint offered $1,000 for the domain and the domain owner responded with a $20,000 offer to sell.
Instead of buying the domain the complaint decided to spent $5K or more to file this pretty crappy UDRP which the panel threw out however failed to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) although I don’t know why
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the three member panel:
Complainant states that the term “Andtech” in its ANDTECH trademark is a coined term used since 1990. Furthermore, there is no dictionary meaning for the term “Andtech” according to Complainant.
According to Complainant, Respondent’s rejection of Complainant’s offer to purchase the disputed domain name for $1,000, and subsequent demand of $20,000 in exchange indicates Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant adds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services. Andtech Corporation emphasizes that Respondent has used the disputed domain name since 2004 to attract Internet users to its web portal, and as a result collects revenue from Internet users seeking Complainant’s business.
With respect to the issue of “bad faith” registration and use, Complainant contends that Respondent’s request of $20,000 for the disputed domain name constitutes an attempt “to profit from the sale of the Domain Name to Complainant.” Andtech Corporation reports that Respondent’s website features an offer to sell the domain name to anyone wishing to make an offer. Furthermore, according to Complainant, Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of redirecting Internet users, seeking Complainant’s business, for its own commercial gain from pay-per-click fees.
“The Panel finds that the trademark in which Complainant has rights and the disputed domain name are identical; that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the domain name was not registered and is not being used in bad faith.”
The Panel concludes that Complainant has not sustained its burden of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel is persuaded that Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services and is making a fair use of the domain name.…
