Samba TV Attempts to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – Domain Name Wire

The TV analytics company tackled a registered domain long before it existed.

Earlier today, I wrote about the UDRP at hummingbird.com and said I was surprised the panelist didn’t consider the UDRP.

The National Arbitration Forum released another decision today with a similar pattern of facts, and the panelist did find reverse domain name hack.

Samba TV, Inc. is a TV analytics company using the samba.tv domain. He filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against SambaTV.com.

As in the hummingbird.com case, Samba TV was founded after the domain was registered, and the plaintiff made no effort to remedy this fatal flaw despite being represented by an attorney.

As in the hummingbird.com case, the domain owner did not respond to the dispute.

But panelist Debrett Lyons went further and determined that this case is a reverse domain name hijacking. Lyons wrote:

The Complainant certifies that “the information contained in this Complaint is, to the best of its knowledge, complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not presented for an improper purpose, such as harassment, and that the assertions contained in this Complaint are substantiated in under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by good faith and reasonable argument.

The complainant is professionally represented. According to its own evidence, the Respondent adopted the disputed domain name before it was able to learn of the Complainant’s activity. Further, Respondent’s limited use of the domain name many years prior to Plaintiff’s first claimed commercial use of the Mark is a use within the ordinary meaning of the dictionary of the terms comprising the Mark.

There is no evidence of bad faith. There is no evidence that Respondent approached Complainant (or anyone else) to sell the domain name, or asked for money or any other favor in response to Complainant’s pleas to transfer the disputed domain name. Nor did Respondent, at any time after Complainant commenced business under the Mark, adapt the resolution page to offer or promote goods or services of the type of interest to Complainant.

From a reading of the evidence, the domain name is coveted by the Complainant as an obvious choice for his subsequently established business and, unwilling to negotiate a commercial agreement for its acquisition, the Complainant initiated this proceeding on the basis of what the Panel considers to be unsupportable assertions.

Given the clear terms of the policy, the committee finds it unlikely that the

The Complaint is complete to the knowledge of the Complainant and finds it incomprehensible that he can certify in good faith that the assertions contained in the Complaint are justified. Panel finds reverse domain name hijacking.

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves and Savitch LLP represented Samba TV, Inc.

Comments are closed.