When all three panelist went their own directions

UDRP decisions are generally unanimous. Differences between the opinions of panelists is a rarity. However, in today’s Case, the panel wasn’t divided into two, but three. Each panelist had a different view when it came to the domain name: M31.Capital.

The Complainant is M31 Management Limited, China. The Complainant provides services in the financial and investment sectors, based in China with worldwide operations. The Complainant was incorporated under laws of China on August 10, 2016. It is also incorporated under the regulations of Cayman Islands, United Kingdom. The Complainant owns the M31 trademark internationally since 2018. The Complainant currently operates on the domain name M31Capital.com.

The Respondent registered the domain name in September 2019. The website on the domain is about M31 Capital, a global investment firm that provides services exclusively in Cryptocurrencies and Digital assets. The Respondent contests that it intends to start a legitimate business on the domain name in question.

Before we tell you further about the three different decisions, we must first tell you about the final decision that was given. The final decision came with the Complaint being denied. However, the panelist (held) also said it couldn’t decide whether the Respondent’s action was justified or not. The panelist (held) suggested the parties enter into a legal court or competent jurisdiction.

One panelist (support) supported the decision, with a little change in decision. According to the panelist (support), the documents submitted by the Respondent were enough to establish its claim of starting a legitimate business with the same name. The panelist (support) denied that the registration of the domain name was in bad faith.

The third panelist (against) had differing views to all the other two panelists. The panelist (against) found out that the documents submitted by the Respondent were not enough. The Respondent however had a business existing in China. The Respondent proposed business also claims service in China. This is a clear sign of bad faith. The panelist (against) granted the Complaint.

The complaint was denied based on the majority decision. You can read the full case here.


Join the Discussion

Discover more from Domain Magazine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Verified by ExactMetrics