In a one member panel decision on a the domain name staybrutal.com the UDRP panel found the registrant was a serial cybersquatter .
The domain was registered through Enom’s privacy service and therefore the owner was “Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Whois Agent”.
The complainant took the position that the domain owner, the Enom Privacy service “is a notorious cybersquatter with a history of UDRP decisions.”
The complainant went on to say later in its complaint: “The Complainant repeats that the Respondent is a known cybersquatter”
The panel agreed.
“”Complainant alleges that Respondent demonstrates a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names using other entities’ registered marks, as evidenced by the multiple UDRP decisions involving Respondent where bad faith and no legitimate interests were found.…The Respondent denies that it has a history of bad faith registration and use of domain names in prior UDRP cases, however the Panel is not convinced by Respondents arguments in this matter.”
“The Panel observes that Respondent in the present case is identified as “Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Whois Agent,” and the decisions mentioned by Complainant involve, among other, “Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Whois Agent.” The Panel therefore agrees with Complainant, as evidence of several UDRP decisions involving Respondent in which the domain name is transferred to the complainant is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the staybrutal.com domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)”.”
So anyone using this same whois privacy service no risks being labelled a serial cyber-sqautter even if they have nothing to do with these previous cases
The panel went on to award the domain to the trademark holder, even through they didn’t apply for their Trademark until after the domain was registered;
“Finally, the Respondent denies that it could have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent assumed registration of the <staybrutal.com> domain name four months before Complainant filed its trademark application for the STAY BRU TAL mark and nineteen months before Complainant began using its mark in commerce in relation to all the goods listed on its trademark application.”
“The question is: Can bad faith be found if the disputed domain name was registered before the trademark was registered or before unregistered trademark rights were required?”
“The Panel notes that the Complainant has used its trademark since 2006, and therefore can claim common law trademark rights since that year. The disputed domain name was registered first in 2010.”