Crown Acquisitions, Inc, won control of the domain name CrownAcquisitions.com in a UDRP this week and although its not a headline type of domain I think it’s a really poor decision by the one member panel of Houston Putnam Lowry, “Chartered Arbitrator”, which contains language that should concern any domain investor.
“The Complainant uses the CROWN ACQUISITIONS, INC. mark in connection with the business of real estate renovation and restoration of buildings, namely rehabilitation, refurbishment, and renovation of high-risk urban commercial and residential properties. Complainant has registered the CROWN ACQUISITIONS, INC. mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,570,118, filed June 15, 2006, registered February 3, 2009).”
Respondent registered the corporation Crown Acquisitions, Inc. with the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations in 2006.
The domain name was registered on September 2, 2006.
First lets take a look at some of the representation and statements made by the Complainant:
The domain name CrownAcquisitions.com is just one of an astonishing 811 domain names owned by Respondent.
More astonishing still is that nearly all of the 811 domain names – which, according to DomainIQ.com, are valued at over $500,000 – are undeveloped, and each domain simply results in a webpage that provides information on how to purchase the domain from Respondent. Despite the fact that Respondent is, without question, a textbook cybersquatter,
Respondent falsely states in Section 4(b)(i)(1) that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain before Complainant filed its trademark application for “Crown Acquisitions” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The truth is that Complainant filed its trademark application with the USPTO on June 15, 2006 – approximately three (3) months before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain, which was in September 2006.
In this regard, Respondent cannot plausibly claim that it had no knowledge of Complainant’s use of the Crown Acquisitions trademark in commerce at the time it registered the Disputed Domain.
At a minimum, Complainant’s filing of the Crown Acquisitions application with the USPTO in June 2006 placed Respondent on constructive notice of Complainant’s rights and, therefore, Respondent knew or should have known that Complainant was using the mark in commerce and claimed trademark rights thereto before it registered the Disputed Domain.
Based on this timing, Complainant suspects that Respondent learned of Complainant’s application with the USPTO and then registered the Disputed Domain for the sole purpose of attempting to sell the domain to Complainant.
Respondent concedes that from the time it registered the Disputed Domain in 2006 until 2011, there was no development or substantive use of the Disputed Domain, meaning that it was undoubtedly cyber-squatting for at least five years.
Even assuming that the Disputed Domain was used for any commercial endeavor – which it was not – Respondent admits that the Disputed Domain has not had any substantive content since 2015. The limited use of the Disputed Domain for only the flash presentation cited in the Response from 2011 through 2015 fails to explain at all, or support any good faith basis for Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain back in September 2006, or anytime thereafter.
Now here is what the one member panel had to say:
Respondent’s web page was a dynamic parking page offering links to a variety of unrelated businesses. A respondent’s failure to make any active use of a domain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
“Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) provides a respondent can prove rights to a domain name if “before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute, [Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.” Respondent claims it was planning to use the domain name in 2007. That was nine years ago. Those plans have obviously not come to any kind of fruition within any reasonable period of time (bearing in mind the domain name was registered a decade ago and it still isn’t being used). Those plans certain didn’t give ANY kind of a clue about Respondent’s business. This Panel still has no idea what Respondent does. While Respondent may have used the domain name at some time to publish a cute video with no particular meaningful content (including Respondent’s name or Respondent’s business), that alone does not create any kind of rights under Policy ¶ 4(c).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) satisfied.”
“This Panel finds Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to the world at large. Complainant has not provided evidence to support its claim the price exceeded Respondent’s out of pocket costs. However, the Panel is willing to infer that fact because Respondent didn’t deny it and Respondent owns roughly 811 essentially undeveloped domain names.”
If Respondent isn’t selling them for more than Respondent’s out of pocket costs, then Respondent would not be able to stay in business (which Respondent has done for more than a decade). Respondent’s actions constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter. The reason Respondent failed to respond is the latter was returned “unclaimed unable to forward.” This means Respondent has not kept its WHOIS information up to date. Given Respondent can easily do this for all 811 domains with a single command and given Respondent’s familiarity with the WHOIS, it seems as though Respondent has deliberately failed to provide accurate WHOIS information. In a commercial context, this gives rise to a rebuttable presumption Respondent has registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. Respondent has failed to rebut that presumption even though a response was submitted.
In my opinion a very bad decision for domain investors.
