Panelist said company made false statement about its registration of similar name.

A Nominet Dispute Resolution Service panelist has determined that 24translate GmbH attempted to reverse hijack the domain name 24translate.co.uk.

24translate is a German company that was acquired by Swedish translation business DigitalTolk last year.

Domain investor Lee Stenning owns the domain.

Panelist Patricia Jones wrote a lengthy decision, ultimately finding that the domain was not registered abusively. She wrote:

Having assessed the evidence, I do not consider that the Complainant has shown how, as a German company providing professional translation services to a primary market in Germany and Switzerland to customers mainly in the financial and insurance sectors, the Respondent would have become aware of it. The Respondent has denied knowledge of the Complainant when he registered the Domain Name and, for the reasons set out above, I accept that denial…

…Use of the Domain Name for a site which invites offers to purchase it when the Respondent did not have knowledge of the Complainant is not an Abusive use under the Policy.

She also wrote a 1,700-word explanation of why she felt this was a case of reverse domain-name hijacking. She summarized it as:

In summary, the Complainant pursued the recovery of the Domain Name in its correspondence with the Respondent’s broker and in its complaint in the mistaken belief that its ownership of the UK Trade Mark meant that the Respondent’s invitation to buy the Domain Name made the registration Abusive, giving no consideration to the Respondent’s knowledge. Even when the issue of  nowledge was raised by the Respondent, the Complainant continued to rely on its UK Trade Mark. The Complainant is expected to be familiar with the Policy and, in my view, it knew, or should have known, that its complaint was bound to fail in circumstances where it was unable to explain how the Respondent would have become aware of it. The Complainant also omitted to disclose evidence of its ownership of the UK Trade Mark despite demanding transfer of the Domain Name based on it and knowing that its ownership had not been recorded at the UK IPO. It made a false statement that it used the 24translate.uk domain in connection with its business, knowing that it had only been registered recently in response to the Respondent’s broker’s queries.