MetaMask attempts reverse domain name hijacking – domain name wire
The maker of the popular cryptocurrency wallet is trying to reverse MetaMask.com domain hijacking.
The developer of MetaMask was find trying to hijack the reverse domain name from the MetaMask.com domain name.
MetaMask is a popular cryptocurrency wallet used by over 20 million people.
ConsenSys, the creator of MetaMask, has filed a UDRP cybersquatting complaint against the domain owner. The domain owner registered it in 2005, long before ConsenSys MetaMask existed. Therefore, ConsenSys could not prove that the domain was registered and used in bad faith, which is a condition to gain a domain in UDRP.
The complainant also claimed that the domain had been used in a phishing campaign. The owner of the domain says that’s not the case, and his lawyer has asked the company to call him to discuss it.
Instead of making a phone call, ConsenSys filed the UDRP. He also made no mention of pre-case correspondence. It was like biting him. Panelist Adam Taylor wrote:
The Panel considers that the following circumstances, taken together, justify a conclusion of RDNH.
First, the complainant largely failed. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant knew or at least should have known that he could not prove one of the essential elements of the UDRP. The Complainant has extensively cited UDRP case law and the Panel believes that it is unlikely that the Complainant was unaware of the current prevailing view of UDRP panelists as to the need to prove registration as well as use. dishonest. Indeed, the discussion of the third element of the Complaint is simply entitled: “The domain name is used in bad faith”, that is to say., by omitting the bad faith registration requirement.
Second, the complaint lacks candor in that it neither mentions (a) the complainant’s email to Mr Schleifer of October 5, 2021, indicating that someone had apparently adopted Mr Schleifer’s identity. to try to sell the disputed domain name to the complainant and then used the disputed domain name for phishing / fraud purposes or, more importantly, (b) the October 6, 2021 response from Mr. Schleifer’s lawyer confirming that Mr. Schleifer owned the disputed domain name (and denying his involvement in phishing / fraud). Even if, despite this email, the Complainant still had some doubts about the identity of the person who approached him to sell the disputed domain name, and even if ultimately nothing turned out to be on this issue given the absence of bad faith registration, the Complainant should not have relied on the alleged use of a false identity without at least mentioning the denial by counsel of the very person whose identity was allegedly falsified.
ConsenSys was represented internally. Lee & Hayes represented the owner of the estate.