Richard P. Glass, Jr. Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking On Petfinity.com Registered in 1999

Richard P. Glass, Jr., represented by Charles F. Meroni, Jr. of Meroni & Meroni, P.C., Illinois, USA has just been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name Petfinity.com

The complainant based his claim on a trademark registered in 2013.

The domain name was registered on September 24, 1999.

“The panel noted that domain was registered by the domain holder on September 24, 1999, which was one month before the UDRP became effective.

“Complainant was well aware that Respondent had 14 years of prior use of the domain name when it offered to purchase the name from Respondent and before bringing this UDRP proceeding. Respondent has used the e-mail address (info@petfinity.com) for 14 years. Respondent’s primary business is running a dog kennel and breeding Giant Schnauzers. Respondent uses the domain name as a secure location for his friends and colleagues to view photos and downloads the ones that they want. Complainant’s pending trademark for the PETFINITY mark does not afford Complainant any rights to receive a transfer of the Respondent’s domain name.”

The Panel found that Complainant acted in bad faith and engaged in reverse domain name hijacking by initiating this dispute.

Complainant is attempting to deprive Respondent, the rightful, registered holder of the petfinity.com domain name, of its rights to use the disputed domain name.

Before filing the Complaint, Complainant clearly knew that the petfinity.com disputed domain name had been long ago registered and used by Respondent. For example, prior to bringing this proceeding, Respondent points out that Complainant registered other PETFINITY domain names including (.net and .org) on or about July 30, 2013. Thus, Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the petfinity.com

It is clear from correspondence attached to the Complainant that Complainant offered to purchase the domain name from Respondent for $1,000 on or about August 16, 2013, thus indicating a clear awareness on the part of Complainant of Respondent’s rights in the domain name at issue at that time and prior to the institution of this proceeding.

Even more troubling from the perspective of an RDNH analysis, Complainant has made no case whatsoever that it has ever used the PETFINITY mark for any purpose. The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence to find that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.