A NAF single member panel recently denied the UDRP complaint brought over the disputed domain names <insuladd.com> and <insuladdglobal.com>. The Panel noted that the Complainant did not make any legal arguments within the Complaint itself but instead asserted that the Respondent illegally hacked into the Complainant’s network and stole the disputed domain names from the Complainant. Complainant asserted that it was ready and willing to file a claim in federal court if unsuccessful in the UDRP proceeding.
Though the decision does not provide a lot of detail, it was clear there is a long history between the parties. The Complainant submitted as an attachment a draft federal complaint in which it argued various legal points including breach of contract and breach of promissory note.
The Panel simply had no basis on which to grant relief to the Complainant. Though it was able to sift through the filing to find the domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark rights, on the rights or legitimate interests and bad faith prongs, the Panel wrote that the “Complainant does not make any legal contentions with respect to [this element of the UDRP].”
The takeaway from this case is for Complainants to not waste their resources filing UDRP cases that do not even make arguments under the UDRP. That will save all parties involved the time needed to toss out a non-case.
Tech Traders LLC / David Page v. Insuladd Environmental Products, NAF Claim Number: FA1707001738720 (August 3, 2017)
About the Author: Evan Brown is a technology and intellectual property attorney helping clients with a wide variety of issues, including domain name disputes under the UDRP. Call him at (630) 362-7237, send email to ebrown [at] internetcases.com, or follow him on Twitter @internetcases. Read Evan’s other blog, internetcases, for more information about general internet law.