RDNH finding for Hottie.com
The UDRP against the aged, generic domain Hottie.com has failed; the Complainant is Easton Corp Pty Ltd of Australia.
According to the UDRP particulars:
“The Complainant is an Australian company that sells lingerie, beachwear, and fashion accessories online at “www.hottie.com.au” to customers in Australia, New Zealand, and worldwide. According to the Complainant’s website, the company was established in 2004. The record includes evidence of Australian industry awards and media attention for the Complainant since 2004.
According to the official IP Australia trademark database, the Complainant holds Australian trademark numbers 1033852 (registered from December 10, 2004) and 1117710 (registered from June 7, 2006) for HOTTIE as a word mark, as well as a later trademark registration in New Zealand. A United States of America trademark application is pending. The Complaint does not furnish evidence of earlier common law protection for HOTTIE as a trademark.”
Hottie.com is a domain that was created on September 4, 1997.
The Response, supported by Domain Tools historical WHOIS record and a buyer’s escrow statement, indicates that Murat Yikilmaz of Istanbul, Turkey acquired the Domain Name in January 2005 for $10,000 dollars.
The Respondent is a Hong Kong limited company, established in November 2014, in which Mr. Yikilmaz is the sole shareholder and director.
The Complainant reports that it contacted the Domain Name registrant in December 2004 and December 2005, complaining that the “adult-content portal” was interfering with the Complainant’s online clothing sales.
According to the Complainant, they turned down offers to acquire Hottie.com for $10,000 or $20,000 dollars.
The Respondent denies receiving any such communications or making any such offers, pointing out that they did not own Hottie.com in December 2004 and suggesting that the emails mentioned by the Complainant (which were not provided with the Complaint or the Complainant’s supplemental filing) were actually exchanged with the former owner of the domain.
Nearly twelve years later, the Complainant initiated the UDRP proceeding.
The trio of WIPO panelists found that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, constituting a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:
“Bringing a UDRP action nearly twelve years later against a subsequent owner has cost the owner substantial sums, when there was no realistic chance of proving that this party had acted in bad faith. The UDRP was intended to serve as an efficient means of redress against cybersquatters, not a cheap alternative to commercial negotiation with legitimate domain name holders.”
W. Scott Blackmer, WiIliam A. Van Caenegem and Neil Brown Q.C. thus ordered the domain Hottie.com to remain with its owner.
The Respondent was represented by Muscovitch Law P.C., of Canada.
For the full text of this UDRP, click here.
