According to UDRPSearch.com, a UDRP was filed at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) for the valuable CPM.com domain name. NAF does not publish the name of the complainant before the decision is rendered, so I am not sure who filed the dispute. The UDRP is case #1672836, and it was commenced yesterday.
CPM.com is one of the oldest domain names in existence, with a creation date of November 11, 1990. The earliest historical Whois listing on DomainTools is from 2000, and it lists a company called Customer Potential Management / CPM and a person named Erick on the record. The current Whois record shows the same person’s name. To me, it looks like the registrants and administrative contacts over the years are all related or the same entity.
At the present time, CPM.com does not have a functional website. When I visited CPM.com this morning, I only see a standard GoDaddy landing page. According to Archive.org, up until recently, CPM.com was used as a redirect to a page within the HealthGrades website. This is no surprise, as back in 2011, a publication called Modern Healthcare reported that “HealthGrades has signed a definitive agreement to merge with CPM Marketing Group, a Madison, Wis.-based provider of customer relationship-management services for hospitals.”
One thing that seems peculiar to me is that there is now a @web.com email address in the Whois record even though the domain name is registered at GoDaddy. A Google search shows that this particular email address seems related to Web.com’s support team. I have no idea why that would be the case.
It seems strange that a UDRP was filed on an aged three letter .com domain name like this, especially given how it has been used. If I find out any more information about this UDRP filing, I will share. If not, I will publish an update once the decision is rendered.
Update: UDRP was decided and the complaint was denied. The related findings section at the bottom of the UDRP decision was very interesting:
The Panel finds that certain facts in this proceeding require comment related to all the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a). Specifically, the Panel finds this matter falls outside the scope of the UDRP. In this case, Respondent Erick Hallick is on the Board of Directors of Complainant and is the representative of the former owners of CPM, Complainant’s predecessor, on that Board. Complainant alleges that Respondent could not have registered the domain name without hacking Complainant’s account and taking over the domain name in an unauthorized manner. Based upon those allegations, and other related facts in the record, the Panel here concludes that the instant dispute contains questions of express or implied contractual interpretation, and thus falls outside the scope of the UDRP. InBracemart, LLC v. Drew Lima, the Panel declined to make any findings under the UDRP when there was evidence that both the complainant and the respondent at some point acted in an official capacity in the management of the company, and that “[b]ased upon this reasoning, the Panel concludes that the instant dispute relates to contractual interpretation and/or whether the relationship between Complainant and Respondent was one of employer-employee or one of partnership, which determination falls outside the scope of the Policy.” See FA 1494699 (Mar. 28, 2013). Because the question of whether the complainant or the respondent in that case had rights in the domain name relied heavily on the corporate structure of the companies involved, the Panel could not resolve the dispute under the UDRP. See Everingham Bros. Bait Co. v. Contigo Visual, FA 440219 (Forum Apr. 27, 2005) (“The Panel finds that this matter is outside the scope of the Policy because it involves a business dispute between two parties. The UDRP was implemented to address abusive cybersquatting, not contractual or legitimate business disputes.”); see also Fuze Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc., FA 844252 (Forum Jan. 8, 2007) (“The Complaint before us describes what appears to be a common-form claim of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. It is not the kind of controversy, grounded exclusively in abusive cyber-squatting, that the Policy was designed to address.”);see also Frazier Winery LLC v. Hernandez, FA 841081 (Forum Dec. 27, 2006) (holding that disputes arising out of a business relationship between the complainant and respondent regarding control over the domain name registration are outside the scope of the UDRP Policy).
It’s likely just some buyer who feels entitled to the domain name taking a cheap shot. Why not? It only costs $1,500 to file the UDRP.
#UDRPscams
No penalty to file a UDRP. The system condones this repeated practice: expecting owners to exhaust valuable funds to fight frivolous cases and refusing to punish complainants acting in bad faith.
Domain owners are coerced into defending their right to own a valuable investment or face losing this to an undeserving party. Complainants show up unprepared and manipulate the UDRP process by withholding important facts such as making an offer on a domain and bidding on it in the past. What a poor system.
Any entity can file a UDRP. If and when the complainant loses, there are no penalties to warrant their practice. How can RDNH affect the complainant? It does nothing to influence their business and/or name.
In the end, domain owners lose money and time fighting these unfair cases. Complainants can go about their usual business without any restrictions. There should be a penalty handed down to reduce filings.
IMO, the UDRP is making money and don’t care whether their system is severely flawed. Too many questionable cases ruled in favor of the complainant.
Seems interesting – somehow a board member of the company suddenly has control of a domain that was owned by a company for a number of years? Sounds like it might be a domain theft case.