A three member UDRP panel has found Dealhunter A/S of Frederiksberg, Denmark, represented by Aumento, Denmark guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name DealHunter.com
The domain holder was represented by Ari Goldberger and Jason Schaeffer of ESQwire.com
The domain name was registered in 1998.
The Complainant was incorporated in 2007 and first registered its domain name dealhunter.dk domain name in 2010.
The company didn’t even file for the trademark DEALHUNTER until 2013.
The Complainant offered a whopping $5K and then $7K for the domain which offers were rejected.
The panel that consisted of Nicholas Smith, Daniel Kraus and The Hon Neil Brown Q.C. found:
“In the view of the Panel this is a Complaint which should never have been launched.”
“The Complainant knew that the Domain Name was registered nearly 9 years before the Complainant came into existence and close to 15 years before it acquired any registered rights in the DEALHUNTER Mark.
It made two offers to purchase the Domain Name, and following the rejection of those offers and the registration of the DEALHUNTER Mark, chose to bring this Complaint.
The Complainant made no attempt to demonstrate the existence of any earlier rights.
Furthermore, it its entirely unclear, given the Respondent is based in the United States and was not using the Domain Name to provide a service similar to the services for which the Complainant registered the DEALHUNTER Mark, which of the Complainant’s trade mark rights the Respondent was allegedly violating.
Given the nature of the Policy and previously decided cases on this issue, this, along with any other arguments that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith, were arguments that had no reasonable prospects of success.
The Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”
The panel also had some very good language which supports the first come first served nature of domain registrations and that quoting a price does not amount to bad faith.
“The Domain Name was registered in 1998. The Complainant was incorporated in 2007, it registered its
“The Complainant has argued that bad faith registration and use can be found by the fact that the Respondent is seeking to sell the Domain Name, received offers from the Complainant and rejected them.”
“These arguments are unpersuasive to this Panel.”
“The Complainant’s submission that an offer to sell a domain name for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs conclusively establishes that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith is an incorrect reading of the Policy.”