Man tried to reverse hijack matching .org and .com domains.

A man in Mexico has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking two times.

Guillermo Vázquez Álvarez filed UDRPs against gressus.org and gressus.com with World Intellectual Property Organization.

The .org case (pdf) was filed against Gressus Ventures LLC. The respondent was founded in early 2015, before the complainant’s first claimed use of the Gressus mark.

Even though the respondent registered the domain two years later, this shows that it was not targeting the complainant with the domain registrations.

Panelist Jeremy Speres, who heard both cases, noted that in the .com case (pdf), the complainant seemed to admit that he still hasn’t launched his business.

In the .org case, he found reverse domain name hijacking for several reasons. One is that the claimed first use of the mark seems to be a fabrication, given that the business hasn’t launched yet.

Speres called out the complainant for stating that, at the time of the 2017 domain registration, “there already existed a public, notorious, and prior use of the GRESSUS mark,” which appears to be false.

He also noted that the complainant argued that “gressus” is a coined name, “highly distinctive and fanciful,” which is false; many companies use this name, as Speres found in a Google search.

The case against the .com had an interesting twist. That domain is owned by the domain investment company FindYourDomain.

In the .com case, the complainant noted that the domain was registered in 2004. FindYourDomain was somewhat coy in its response, calling out the date the complainant cited as the registration date.

Speres correctly called into question when FindYourDomain actually acquired the domain. (A look at historical DomainTools records shows it was after 2015.)

Nevertheless, Speres noted that it was on the complainant to “credibly allege” a change in the registrant, thereby shifting the burden back on the domain owner to show its ownership date.

But the panelist also said that, even assuming a later registration date, the complaint would still fail because there was insufficient evidence indicating targeting.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, Speres again referred to the complainant’s business not having actually launched yet, as well as the claim that it was a distinctive mark, even though it’s a Latin word used by many companies.

Regalado & Galindo Abogados represented the complainant in both cases. Both parties were represented internally.