The owner of the domain Emazing.com, which was registered in 1997, beat down a Dutch company that filed a UDRP against it.
Not only did the Respondent outline every hole in the claims brought forth by Emazing B.V. of Baarn, Netherlands and its corporate lawyers, he did so without any legal representation. The Dutch folk operate from Emazing.nl.
His arguments were as follows:
The Respondent provides a relatively detailed description of when the Domain Name was registered and how it was used subsequent to registration. This is supported by printouts from the Internet Archive and other documentation, and this history has for the most part already been recounted in the Factual Background section of this decision above. The Respondent claims that the Domain Name has never been used for a business directed to persons in the Netherlands or the European Union.
The Respondent also claims that the Domain Name was used in recent years for the purpose of providing personal email addresses for the Respondent and members of his family. This is said to provide the Respondent with a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Further, the history of the use of the Domain Name is said by the Respondent to demonstrate that the Domain Name cannot have been registered and used in bad faith. So far as registration is concerned, the Respondent relies upon the fact that the Domain Name was initially registered more than two years prior to the date the Complainant’s business was founded. It also asks that the Panel make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
Matthew S. Harris, sole panelist, examined all evidence and delivered a scathing finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking for Emazing.com – the Holy Grail of any defense against a UDRP.
For a self-represented case, the Respondent appeared to be well-versed; generally speaking, domain owners should seek expert representation by a qualified IP attorney to preserve their valuable domain assets.
For the full text of the UDRP, click here.
