This headline, written on Twitter by domain industry attorney Zak Muscovitch, was too good to not share in its own blog post:
— DNattorney (@DNattorney) October 25, 2017
Zak’s firm represented the owner of PSHOT.com in a UDRP filing against a “penis doctor.” The domain owner won the UDRP and Zak’s defense obtained a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding.
Here’s an excerpt of the decision regarding RDNH. The entire decision can be found in a pdf file on DNAttorney.com:
Without prior rights, Complainant has no UDRP case, since there was no abusive registration. Here, the Panel found, based upon the undisputed evidence, that the Domain Name was registered on July 25, 2002 – nearly ten (10) years before Complainant’s claimed date of first use of its mark, i.e. February 25, 2012, and 13 years before the Complainant obtained a US trademark registration. The undisputed facts foreclose a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)iii.
Respondent asserts in its submission:
“Where a complainant is represented by intellectual property counsel who even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its application in this area should have appreciated that the complaint could not succeed since the respondent’s domain name had been registered prior to any trade-mark rights being acquired, RDNH may be found[.] See for example, Proto Software, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc/PROTO.COM (WIPO Case No. D2006-0905).”
The Panel agrees and finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by Complainant by unanimous decision. Complainant’s deceptive citation to the key case on which Complainant relied further supports the Panel’s finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Zak stood firm, displaying a stiff defense against the doctor’s attempt to snatch the domain name. Zak really knows the ins and outs of the UDRP, and he always seems to come out on top.