Two former partners in Ukraine that formed a joint venture called U Princess feuded over the matching .com domain, UPrincess.com.
The project involved the creation of a VIP beach resort card, allowing beautiful female clients to enjoy the sun, along with other spa-related services and activities.
The case is interesting to peruse, as it involves allegations of “betrayal” by the parties involved, references to sums of money that was invested, the formation of an offshore company in Panama, and allegations of “jealousy.”
U Princess on Facebook.
Here’s a summary of the UDRP:
“The Complainant is the founder of the U PRINCESS project in Ukraine, created at the beginning of 2013. Said project consists in a noncommercial activity connected to the provision of various benefits and exclusive privileges for select young women, via the issuance of a nominative card to the participants who have passed competitive selection of an independent jury rating their appearance and style. The U PRINCESS card is aimed at showing the prestige and recognition of the beauty and style of its card owners and gives a variety of the privileges such as invitation and access to closed presentations, benefit fashion evenings and other exclusive events, VIP-service in elite restaurants, special offers from popular fashion brands, discounts on fitness trainings and traveling.
The privileges provided by the U PRINCESS card are being supplied in close cooperation with various popular brands in Ukraine and in the world such as Lee Cooper, Brocard, Karen Millen, Ukrainian Fashion Week and Sportlife, some of which are also sponsors of the events which are held under the aegis of the project. By the time of existence of the project, more than 1,000 young women in Ukraine have become its participants.
The official web site of the project is available at “www.uprincess.net” since February 2, 2013, and the correspondent domain name <uprincess.net> was registered on January 22, 2013. The project is also promoted through a dedicated Facebook page.
The Respondent has provided marketing and IT consultancy services to the Complainant in connection with its project since 2013. According to an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent signed in June 2013, the Respondent was provided the opportunity to buy 10 per cent of the shares in a future company which would have been created and to which all the activity and assets of the U PRINCESS project should have been transferred during subsequent 12 months. The company Uprincess S.A. was registered in Panama in October 2015. The Complainant is president of the company, while the Respondent was secretary.”
In his response, the Respondent stated the following:
“The Respondent states that it paid USD 20,000 to the Complainant in exchange for 10 per cent of the shares of the to-be-formed company U Princess S.A., and that it worked with the Complainant both by providing it with technical and legal support, but also by paying the Complainant USD 18,000 beyond its initial USD 20,000 contribution, hosting events in its home for the business, and utilizing its home as the business’s office.
The Respondent also indicates that it designed and maintained the U PRINCESS web site and database and helped with the general strategy of the business. As a component of this general strategy, the Respondent began developing a new web site and negotiating with the third party who previously owned the disputed domain name because the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix is a more valuable and brandable destination for potential clients.
The Respondent asserts that the Complainant was fully aware that the Respondent was purchasing the disputed domain name and that the Respondent paid USD 2,500 for the disputed domain name of its own funds. Once it did, the new web site was migrated to the disputed domain name. The Respondent states that the Complainant was fully aware of this and even asked the Respondent to provide it with a copy of the web site source code. The Respondent did so, and the Complainant used that copy, after the dispute between the parties arose, to create a clone of the web site at its domain name <uprincess.net>.”
The best part is about an alleged relationship that emerged between the Respondent and a resort customer:
“The Complainant “became jealous of the Respondent’s relationship with one UPrincess member and informed the Respondent that he was no longer allowed to come to the beach club” and, following a discussion during an event, the Complainant accessed the web site at the disputed domain name and began deleting all of the members of the web site from the related database. “
Ouch.
As always, personal and business interests better not mix. 😉 The Respondent’s lifestyle looks rather flamboyant, in our opinion.
The sole panelist, Luca Barbero, delivered the decision that UPrincess.com should be transferred to the Complainant.
