UDRP has been denied.
In UDRP cases, a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is considered the ultimate trophy.
The RDNH finding is delivered when a UDRP case involving a domain is clean-cut about the Complainant’s collective activity; in other words, when the Complainant was aware of the case’s particulars being in favor of the Respondent, but they filed the UDRP regardless.
A case involving the domain RealeGroup.com had all the ingredients for a RDNH finding, but such a finding was denied on the technicality that the Respondent did not ask for it!
The Complainant, Società Reale Mutua di Assicurazioni of Torino, cited a formation as a mutual insurer in 1828 in Italy. They possess several marks that include the word “REALE”.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2001 in good faith because it incorporated his own name and the generic term “group”. The name “The Reale Group” is a trading name of Andrew Reale, who has always been listed as the administrator of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant tried to extract points in the UDRP by alleging that a person cannot be a “group” of companies and that the domain name has been dormant for a while. The Respondent then produced archived web pages from Archive.org, showing his use of the domain.
The sole panelist, Adam Taylor, delivered this final note and refused to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, ordering the domain to remain with the Respondent:
“There is no mention of “www.archive.org” in the Complaint or the many exhibits thereto. How likely is it that the Complainant failed to check “www.archive.org” to see if there were any archive versions of a website at the disputed domain name, particularly given the potential importance to the case of any past use of the disputed domain name and in light of the Complainant’s other extensive investigations and searches into the Respondent’s activities? Certainly, the Panel would have had no difficulty in concluding that the Complainant was likely to have been aware of the May 2004/February 2010 screenshots if, say, the Complainant had relied upon different screenshots from “www.archive.org”. But it has not done so and so it is just about possible that the Complainant was unaware of the facility available at “www.archive.org”. Furthermore, the Respondent has the onus of establishing RDNH and he has not specifically asserted that the Complainant must have been aware of the archive screenshots, let alone provided any explanation as to why.”
For the full text of this UDRP case for the domain RealeGroup.com, click here.
So can someone explain if any laws were broken? Will the company pursue any further legal action?