If you’re divorcing your spouse of several years in a bitter legal battle, what a better way to get even by taking her domain in a UDRP – right?
That’s what the Complainant thought he’d do, in a case involving the domain name nammex.com.
Registered in 1999 in the name of North American Reishi ltd., the domain name appears to have been initially managed by the Complainant and in his name; both parties are from Canada.
Sometime in late 2012, however, the domain changed hands – and guess who became the registrant on record?
If you guessed “the wife” you are right.
According to the husband, he contracted the wife to build and manage the domain and web site, but the wife’s response was completely different:
- Respondent is the spouse of Complainant, Jeff […]. Respondent did not act in bad faith when registering the nammex.com domain name in her name, and Respondent has continued to provide website, email, and consulting services to Complainant in good faith.
- Respondent has an interest in Complainant’s business. Respondent believes the business is a part of the marital separation negotiations and Respondent may be receiving an ownership stake in the business.
- Respondent and Complainant Chilton are parties to a legal separation proceeding pursuant to applicable Canadian law.
Not to be outdone, the husband then responded:
- Complainant […] and Respondent are not married in the traditional sense. The parties have lived in a common law relationship since December 2005, and by law after two years of living together they are considered married. Canadian law states that all property brought into such a relationship remains the property of each individual partner, and this property is referred to as “Excluded Property.” Therefore, no prior asset of Complainant Chilton, such as the nammex.com domain name, can be claimed as an asset of Respondent.
- Complainant did not give Respondent authority to registered the nammex.com domain name in her own name, and Respondent has not demonstrated any written permission or orders from Complainant indicating otherwise.
- Contrary to Respondent’s contentions, Complainant’s business is not part of the marital separation negotiations. The idea had been discussed previously, but it was determined in September 2013 that part ownership in Complainant’s business would not be part of the negotiations.
Seeing how this is a clear case of a civil dispute outside of the scope of a UDRP, the sole panelist, Charles K. McCotter, Jr. decided to tell the parties involved to take it to a traditional court.
Have you signed a prenuptial agreement yet? This case might convince you to. 😀
This post is 100% true!
Hey kids try BabyDontLeave.com 🙂
They can work it out!