UDRP has been denied.
A company went after DCAC.com but failed to disclose important facts about their communications with the Respondent.
The 1998 domain registration was challenged at the National Arbitration Forum by Denny Cherry & Associates Consulting, LLC.
It’s apparent that they wanted this exact match acronym, and in 2011 they inquired about the domain.
According to the UDRP, the Respondent sought $6,100 dollars in exchange, something that the Complainant referred to as “ransom” for the domain.
Although there was no formal response in this UDRP by the Respondent, they submitted additional information to the panel:
“Though we did not file a formal response, I’ve attached a full screenshot of the conversation between the domain broker and the Complainant, showing that the Complainant originally inquired about the domain name on Sept. 23, 2011 and that Complainant advised us on Jan. 31, 2017 of their Trademark registration dated Sept. 6, 2016.
Also, Complainant mentions that they’ve operated a website at dcac.co, “From on or about September 14, 2011”. The statement is misleading at best. According to the .CO registry the correct registration date of the domain ‘dcac.co’ is September 24, 2011, the day after the Complainant first inquired.
I hope you will consider this information in your decision.”
Sole panelist, Debrett G. Lyons, stated:
“The domain name was created in 1998. The USPTO Registration for the trademark was filed and registered in 2016. According to the USPTO Registration, the first claim to use of the trademark in commerce is in 2013. There is no claim to earlier common law rights other than a bald assertion that the trademark was used in respect of IT consulting services since 2011. On the evidence, that was the year in which Complainant was incorporated and so a claim to common law use by Complainant could not have been earlier than 2011. The creation of the domain name predates formation of Complainant by more than a decade.”
DCAC.com was thus ordered to remain with the Respondent; read about the UDRP decision.
So the complainant spent upwards of $5,000 on UDRP filing fees and attorney fees to avoid taking a reasonable offer of $6,100 from the rightful owner of the domain name. And now, the complainant has nothing to show for his effort. The complainant is not the sharpest knife in the drawer or got really, really bad legal advice from a lawyer who should have known better.
If Mr. Cherry just assumes that he is entitled to someone else’s long-ago registered domain name after obtaining a federal trademark filing, why did he not file a UDRP against Cherry.com which was registered back in 1995?
Logan – He was definitely cherry picking 🙂