I don’t understand why the Complainant wasted its money.
Sometimes I read a UDRP and scratch my head. What was the Complainant thinking?
That’s my response to Healthyr, LLC v. Jonathan Curd, filed with World Intellectual Property Organization.
Healthyr is a health and wellness company that uses the domain behealthyr.com. It selected this domain because the Respondent already owned Healthyr.com when it set up its business.
The Complainant tried to buy the domain from the domain owner, but the parties were slightly apart on pricing. According to the UDRP decision, the final buyer offer was $5,000, and the final seller offer was $7,500.
Now, if the Complainant had a legitimate cybersquatting claim, then by all means, file a UDRP. But this case was so bad I don’t understand why the Complainant would spend likely thousands of dollars filing a UDRP that was dead on arrival, which was more than the gap between the parties. And now, if it still wants to acquire the domain, it will surely pay more than $7,500.
The Complainant bizarrely argued that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name while the Complainant was preparing to launch its business last year and shortly before Complainant filed its United States trademark application, yet it also argued that the domain hadn’t hosted content during its last 15 years of registration. So it argued that Respondent acquired the domain last year and the domain hadn’t hosted content during its last 15 years of registration? You can’t have both. (For the record, the domain owner registered the domain in 2006, not last year while Healthyr was setting up its business.)
There was no way for the Complainant to argue this domain was registered and used in bad faith. In fact, the Complainant lost all three of the elements of the UDRP.
Panelist Lawrence Nodine went a step further, finding Healthyr, LLC guilty of reverse domain name hijacking because it made “factually misleading allegations and key arguments that lacked a plausible legal basis.”
In addition to the issue about claiming the domain was registered just recently while not being put to use for 15 years, Nodine noted that the Complainant omitted early communications with its domain buyer broker that “reflect material facts that are relevant to and undermine Complainant allegations that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name based on knowledge of Complainant’s business plan.”
Burr & Forman LLP represented Healhyr, LLC and John Berryhill represented the domain owner.
Post link: Healthyr, LLC tries reverse domain name hijacking
© DomainNameWire.com 2023. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact editor (at) domainnamewire.com. Latest domain news at DNW.com: Domain Name Wire.
