When an environment company was handed RDNH over its complaint

Environment awareness is spreading across the world as the effects of climate change begin to dawn upon us. People have become sensitive to the climate and are actively talking about it. However, in the realms of legal procedures, the laid down regulations still hold the superiority. Even against the prevailing notions of civility and righteousness.

Ecostream LLC is a company that provides water management and hydrocarbon reclamation services. The company was formed on November 14, 2013 and started using the mark ECOSTREAM from June 29, 2016. It acquired the domain name EcoStreamUSA.com. It had been using the mark continuously since then.

However, the domain name EcoStream.com was registered by someone else. Ecostream then went to the Forum with a complaint against the domain name. The complainant claimed that ever since its inception, it has been using the mark and has also registered a related domain name. Owing to its continuous usage, the Complainant assumes common law rights over the mark. This right is violated through the disputed domain name and hence the complainant expects the panel to hand over the domain to him.

The panel found that the domain name was registered on May 5, 1999. The domain name has been with the Respondent since then. It even operated a business on the domain name, until its closure in 2008. The domain name redirected to eneco.co.uk, another one of Respondent’s domains. There was even a brief conversation between the two parties about the domain name, however a disagreement over the price led the talks astray.

The panel found that the domain name was registered way before the Complainant even had the chance to establish its common law rights. In this situation, the first condition of rights in a UDRP, gets violated and on this basis the whole complaint dissolves. The complaint was thus inevitably denied.

However, the panel found that the Complainant was represented by a learned counsel. Under such a situation, the complainant must have been aware that this complaint won’t succeed. Moreover, there were already talks about the purchase of a domain name going on. Entering into a dispute post that could be considered as Plan B. The panel awarded the Complainant with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

You can read the case in full detail 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