Wireless Charging Company Attempts to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking-Domain Name Wire

Energysquare attempts to upgrade domain names by exploiting the unified domain name dispute resolution policy.

French companies licensed for wireless charging technology found You have tried to reverse domain name hijacking the domain Energysquare.com.

Energysquare uses the domain name Energysquare.co, so it’s clear why you upgraded.

The problem for the company was that the .com owner registered it before Energysquare existed, which prevented the domain owner from maliciously registering the domain and later selling it to the company. That is.

John Swinson, a panelist at the World Intellectual Property Organization, has determined that it is in favor of domain owners and that Energysquare has been guilty of reverse domain hijacking.

Swinson has determined that Energysquare hints at certain UDRP provisions that are not relevant to the current proceedings. He wrote:

The only reason for the claimant’s malice was that the defendant was a “domain administrator” who owned about 1,000 domain names, and the disputed domain name was unused but for sale. The complaint appears to depend on paragraphs 4 (b) (i) and (ii) of the policy, but does not explicitly cite these provisions.

If there is a situation indicating that the Respondent has registered a disputed domain name primarily for sale to the Respondent or competitors under paragraphs 4 (b) (i) of the Policy, it is registered and malicious. Evidence of some use. Of the petitioner for great profit. This may not have been the defendant’s main intent at the time the defendant registered the disputed domain name, as the petitioner did not exist when the defendant registered the disputed domain name …

And:

Finally, the claimant indirectly states that the respondent is engaged in the pattern of registering a domain name for resale because the respondent owns many domain names for sale. Implyes to. However, simply owning a large number of domain names is not proof of malicious intent in itself. The domain name registered by the respondent reflects the trademark of a third party in order for the panel to discover that the respondent is engaged in a behavioral pattern for the purposes of paragraph 4 (b) (ii) of the policy. is needed. Abuse based on the similarity between such domain names and third-party trademarks. There is no such evidence here, nor is there evidence that the domain name was registered by the respondent to prevent existing third party trademark owners from registering the corresponding domain name.

Walter Billet Avocats represented Energysquare. The domain owner represented himself.