If you think there is something wrong with the dates cited in the decision, you are right.
I was reading a UDRP decision (pdf) for snugg.com today when something caught my eye. The first two paragraphs of the “factual background” summary that the panelist gathers state:
According to the complaint, the disputed domain name was registered on August 23, 2020 and updated on August 16, 2021.
On August 26, 2021, the Complainant was incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. He is based in Edinburgh, Scotland. According to the Complaint, since approximately the date of its incorporation, the Complainant has been carrying on business under the name “Snugg”.
First off, anyone reading this summary knows the deal is dead when it arrives. Complainant cannot demonstrate that the domain owner registered the domain in bad faith to target a Complainant who did not exist at the time of registration.
The other thing that nagged at me was the check-in date. Snugg.com is an exceptional domain, and a registration date in 2020 would be surprising. This can happen if the domain has expired and gone through the full deletion cycle, but it’s very rare.
The name also sounded familiar to him. It turns out that this domain also faced a UDRP in 2012.
Looking at the Whois record, the record date is clearly 1999, not 2020.
In both UDRP cases, the domain owner did not respond but won.
I don’t know if World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Warwick Rothnie made a typo in the factual information section or if the complainant Arniston Ltd said it was registered in 2020 In this case, the dates always preceded the plaintiff’s rights.
Jerrold Temko represented the Complainant.
Comments are closed.