7/27/2019 UNiDAYS UDRP reverse domain name hijacking

1/6

ARBITRATIONANDMEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

MYUNiDAYS Limited v. Ashantiplc Ltd / Customer _10!"#$!!

Case No. D01%&1'"(

1. The Parties

)he Complainant is MYUNiDAYS Limited o* Nottin+ham, United -in+dom o* reat ritain and Northern

reland 2United -in+dom34, represented 56 Actons Solicitors, United -in+dom.

)he 7espondent is Ashantiplc Ltd o* 8on+ -on+, China / Customer _10!"#$!! o* Ne9ar:, Dela9are,

United States o* America, represented 56 ;ohn err6hill, ., United States o* America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

)he disputed domain name ?unida6s.com@ the 2Domain Name34 is re+istered 9ith ac:slap Domains, nc.

the 27e+istrar34.

. Pro!ed"ra# $istor%

)he Complaint 9as *iled 9ith the uest *or re+istrar veri*ication in

connection 9ith the Domain Name. Bn Novem5er 1, 01%, the 7e+istrar transmitted 56 email to the Center

its veri*ication response disclosin+ re+istrant and contact in*ormation *or the Domain Name 9hich di**ered

*rom the named 7espondent and contact in*ormation in the Complaint. )he Center sent an emailcommunication to the Complainant on Novem5er #, 01%, providin+ the re+istrant and contact in*ormation

disclosed 56 the 7e+istrar, and invitin+ the Complainant to su5mit an amendment to the Complaint. )he

Complainant *iled an amended Complaint on Novem5er 1#, 01%.

)he Center veri*ied that the Complaint to+ether 9ith the amended Complaint satis*ied the *ormal

re>uirements o* the Uni*orm Domain Name Dispute 7esolution

7/27/2019 UNiDAYS UDRP reverse domain name hijacking

2/6

pa+e

Decem5er 10, 01%

)he Center appointed Nicholas Smith, Nic: ;. ardner and Alan L. Lim5ur6 as panelists in this matter on

;anuar6 $, 01#. )he

7/27/2019 UNiDAYS UDRP reverse domain name hijacking

3/6

pa+e %

counter&o**ers. 6 reason o* those *acts the 7espondent holds no ri+hts or le+itimate interests in the Domain

Name.

)he Domain Name 9as re+istered and is 5ein+ used in 5ad *aith. Not9ithstandin+ the incorporation o* the

Complainant su5se>uent to the re+istration o* the Domain Name, the 7espondent re+istered and used the

Domain Name in 5ad *aith 5ecause, since re+istration the 7espondent has consistentl6 o**ered the Domain

Name *or sale, and 5ecause since re+istration the 7espondent has redirected the Domain Name to a

9e5site that has no connection 9ith universities. )his conduct amounts to re+istration and use o* the

Domain Name in 5ad *aith.

B. Res+ondent

)he Complainant has not proven that the Domain Name 9as re+istered and used in 5ad *aith 5ecause the

Domain Name 9as re+istered in 00(, 9ith the 7espondent 5ecomin+ re+istrant in 00!. Neither the

Complainant, nor its trade mar:, eIisted prior to 011.

)he Complainant has provided evidence o* its trade mar: re+istration *or the UNDAYS Mar: 5ut has

provided no in*ormation a5out 9hat sort o* 5usiness the Complainant conducts or 9hat +ood9ill it has in the

UNDAYS Mar:.

)he 7espondent has ri+hts and le+itimate interests in the Domain Name 56 reason o* the *act that the

7espondent re+istered the Domain Name prior to the Complainant havin+ an6 ri+hts in the UNDAYS Mar:.

)he *act that the 7espondent has used the Domain Name *or paid advertisin+ services does not result in the

7espondent lac:in+ ri+hts and le+itimate interests 9hen the 7espondent has 5een usin+ the Domain Name

*or that purpose since 5e*ore the Complainant had an6 ri+hts in the UNDAYS Mar:. A5sent some le+al

impediment, o* 9hich the Complainant has advanced none, the 7espondent 9as entitled to re+ister the

Domain Name in 00! and use the Domain Name since then. Accordin+l6 the Complainant has *ailed to

sho9 the 7espondent lac:s ri+hts or le+itimate interests.

)he evidence in this case is that the 7espondent has held the Domain Name prior to the Complainants

eIistence 0114. )he Domain Name could not have 5een re+istered and used in 5ad *aith.

7/27/2019 UNiDAYS UDRP reverse domain name hijacking

4/6

pa+e #

5e identical or con*usin+l6 similar to the Complainants trade or service mar:.

)he Complainant is the o9ner o* the UNDAYS Mar:, havin+ re+istrations *or UNDAYS as a trade mar: in

the United -in+dom. As the 2.com3 +)LD ma6 5e discarded in considerin+ the identit6 or con*usin+ similarit6

5et9een a domain name and a mar:, the Domain Name is identical to the UNDAYS Mar:. Conse>uentl6,

the re>uirement o* para+raph #a4i4 o* the

7/27/2019 UNiDAYS UDRP reverse domain name hijacking

5/6

pa+e (

see:in+ to sell the Domain Name and received o**ers *rom the Complainant, reHected them and made

si+ni*icantl6 hi+her counter&o**ers. )hese ar+uments are unpersuasive to this uisition and 9ould not eIist *or another

*our 6ears. )he mere *act that the 7espondent has chosen to sell the Domain Name *or valua5le

consideration is not 56 itsel* evidence that the 7espondent ac>uired the Domain Name *or the purpose o*sellin+ the Domain Name to the Complainant or a competitor o* the Complainant *or valua5le consideration.

7/27/2019 UNiDAYS UDRP reverse domain name hijacking

6/6

pa+e "

complainant :ne9 that the respondent used the at&issue domain name as part o* a bona %ide5usiness,

and 9here the re+istration date o* the at&issue domain name preceded the dates o* the complainantEs

relevant trademar: re+istrations.3

)he three&mem5er panel in &ell !i$ited v. 'lti$ate Search,