Virtually all UDRP panels in the past have refused to return an allegedly stolen domain name back to the original registrant, generally finding such a matter to be outside the UDRP panel authority.
However one of the two newest UDRP organizations, the On-line ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) just gave the domain name VIRTUALCOLLABORATION.ORG to the original registrant finding that “The Respondent transferred the disputed domain name to its own account without the Complainant’s consent by accessing the Complainant’s personal GoDaddy account by using her login data.”
The registrant did not have a registered trademark but a corporate name pretty much matching the domain.
“In the case at hand, the undisputed existence of unregistered rights is supported by the use of the unregistered company name VIRTUAL COLLABORATION LIMITED.”
The domain holder did not respond to the complaint.
“In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, it is not possible to conclude that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complaint sets out a compelling story of outright misappropriation, without any apparent colour of right on the part of the Respondent.
On the issue of bad faith, the one member panel found, “according to the Complainant’s undisputed allegations the Respondent hijacked the disputed domain name through unauthorised password access. In accordance with previous panel decisions under the UDRP, this Panel is satisfied that this kind of facts is sufficient to establish bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy”
Every panelist should write their own version of the UDRP and act accordingly. At least we would know what to expect from each panelist.
Decisions are a mess.
I had a domain “hijacked” by an arrogant company using a procedure known as UDRP.
I managed to recover that domain in Court.