Fresh Brandz LLC tries reverse domain name hijacking

Company went after domain that was registered before it existed.

The words "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" in yellow on a black background

A company that sells aluminum-free deodorant has tried to reverse hijack, a UDRP panel has determined.

Fresh Brandz LLC sells a line of deodorant under the name Fresh Kidz. It uses the domain name

The company filed a UDRP against, which domain name investor eWorldWideWeb, Inc. owns.

eWorldWideWeb acquired the domain name in an expired domain auction in March 2018. Fresh Brandz wasn’t formed until later that year. Fresh Brandz said it was the predecessor in interest of a company that existed before the domain registration but did not provide any evidence of that.

The three-person panel found that the Complainant failed to make even a prima facie case that the domain owner lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Even if it had, the panel said the domain owner successfully rebutted it.

The panel also found that the Complainant failed to show the domain was registered and used in bad faith.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, it wrote:

In the present case the Panel considers that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unlikely to be able to show
 Respondent lacked a legitimate interest or had registered or used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. In this regard Respondent must have known Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name predated Complainant’s formation (a date which Complainant failed to identify in the Complaint), and predated the claimed first use in commerce date claimed in the FRESH KIDZ Trademark application (again a date which Complainant failed to identify in the Complaint). In order to overcome this problem Complainant sought to rely on what it said was its predecessor in interest Kind2Skin Ltd and says it is the assignee of that company’s trademark rights in the Earlier FRESH KIDZ Trademark. In doing so it was vague as to the relevant chronology but it must have been apparent to Complainant and/or its counsel that evidentiary proof of such an assignment was required, but none was provided. Complainant has failed to adduce any evidence at all to support its claim to be the successor in interest to Kind2Skin Ltd or its trademark, and it failed to disclose that trademark had subsequently been cancelled for non-use. Taking all of these factors into account, the Panel finds that Complainant’s actions amount to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

The panelists were Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC and Sandra J. Franklin as Panelists and Nick J. Gardner.

Timothy Frailly, one of Fresh Brandz’s managers, represented the company in its filing. Jason Schaeffer of, P.C., represented the domain name owner.

Post link: Fresh Brandz LLC tries reverse domain name hijacking

© 2024. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact editor (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Tagged in :