UDRP panel finds pet transportation company guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.
Marchex, with the help of domain name attorney John Berryhill, has won a charge of reverse domain name hijacking.
The case was brought by Airpet Animal Transport, Inc for the domain name PetExpress.com.
What makes this case particularly interesting to the public is the volume of the two parties’ pleadings that are included in the decision.
The complainant clearly left out important facts in the dispute, and Berryhill takes the complainant to task. Maybe I’m a domain dork, but I think it makes for fun reading.
The panel writes:
It is certainly true Complainant was conclusory in its initial submission (and that is being charitable). Respondent rightly pointed out Complainant’s claims were not possible as stated because Complainant was not formed until 2005. While Complainant could have stated all of this in Complainant’s initial submission, it chose not to. The question is why not? It seems Complainant did this to improve its chances in this UDRP proceeding. Complainant applied for a trademark after knowing about Respondent’s domain name and did not disclose that fact to either the USPTO or the Panel. Once again, the question is why not? Presumably, Complainant wanted to improve its chances in registering its mark and this proceeding.
It’s a long decision, but worth reading.
The complainant, which was found guilty of a abusing the UDRP procedure, was represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP.