Global Transmission Media Solutions of Utah was just found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name GTMS.com by a UDRP panel from the National Arbitration Forum
The domain holder was represented by Zak Muscovitch.
The one member panel found that the complainant, “who, on no evidence at all, accused the Respondent of acting in bad faith.”
“That, itself, is an act of bad faith and is part of the reason why the Panel has made the finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. ”
Here are the relevant facts and findings:
Complainant is the registered owner of the trade mark [GTMS Design mark image redacted] (U.S. Registration No. 3,351,273) (the “GTMS design mark”) covering “Installing satellite dishes; satellite dish installation and repair” (International Class 37) and “Planning, development and technical support of electronic communications networks; Technical support, namely, monitoring of network systems; Custom design and engineering of telephony systems; Engineering services, namely, engineering for the Satellite Telecommunications Industry; Technology consultation in the field of Satellite Telecommunications, Content Management, and System Engineering” (International Class 42). The mark is reflected on the trademarks register as having been in use since 2006.”
“Whilst Complainant has made various statements towards supporting its claim that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Panel is of the view that Respondent has provided admissible and relevant evidence which demonstrates that he has a legitimate right and interest therein, namely the evidence submitted showing the use of the dispute domain name for e-mail purposes and the printing of his business cards for the Global Trade Management Services business in 2003. ”
“The Panel agrees that the use of a domain name for e-mail is a legitimate interest within the meaning of the Policy”
“The Panel is not persuaded that there is a pattern of conduct that can be said to exist simply from the fact that Respondent has registrations of two other domain names which do not appear to be used. ”
“Respondent has explained that the domain names mentioned, namely <modayil.com> and <saintgregorios> refer, respectively, to the family name of the Respondent’s sister-in-law and to the patron saint of the Respondent’s family in Kerala, India. There is nothing to suggest that these are identical to registered and/or recognizable trade marks. Moreover, these certainly fall short of the standard which ought to be applied to the sort of evidence required to make a finding of a “pattern of conduct”.…
