Contact Us Today! (877) 276-5084

Attorney Steve® Blog

Use of RDNH finding in UDRP case to support a malicious prosecution claim

Posted by Steve Vondran | Mar 01, 2022 | 0 Comments

Attorney Steve® Domain Name Dispute Essentials - Using a finding of RDNH to support a malicious prosecution or wrongful initiation of civil proceedings claim.

trademark cybersquatting

 

Introduction

Below are the findings of a WIPO arbitration proceeding that I was involved in that found the Complainant (an IP and copyright law firm handling Strike 3 adult pornography cases) engaged in RDNH and you can see that the language in the holding should put the Complainants and their attorneys on notice of a potential Wrongful Institution of Civil Proceedings claim - as it is known in Arizona (check your state law, and see their legal requirements and see if they discuss the Restatement of Torts which discusses administrative proceedings).  To fully understand the claim, please review our blog on WICP.

Finding of WIPO UDRP Panel

Under Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules, “If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.” Respondent has requested such a finding in this case.

The majority of the Panel believes a finding of abuse is appropriate here.

Several of the factors set out in section 4.16 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 that support such a finding are present:

- “(i) facts which demonstrate that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements – such as the complainant's lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith (see generally section 3.8) such as registration of the disputed domain name well before the complainant acquired trademark rights,” (emphasis supplied).

- “(iii) unreasonably ignoring established Policy precedent notably as captured in this WIPO Overview – except in limited circumstances which prima facie justify advancing an alternative legal argument,” The Policy precedent ignored by Complainant here consists of two fundamental underpinnings of Policy proceedings – registration of the disputed domain name prior to Complainant's accruing trademark rights and failure to provide evidence of crucial allegations. “The matters identified in the preceding paragraph are not Policy arcana; each is a precedent of long standing and derived from scores of cases, and each addresses a fundamental Policy requirement.” DIGITI limited liability company v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc / Michele Dinoia, Macrosten LTD, WIPO Case No. D2018-2148, quoting from Pick Enterprises, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Woman to Woman Healthcare / Just Us Women Health Center f/k/a Woman to Woman Health CenterWIPO Case No. D2012-1555.

- “(viii) basing a complaint on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence.”

Further, Complainant, himself an intellectual property lawyer, is represented by counsel, a factor that some panels have found – and the Panel majority finds here – should be held to a higher standardWIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16; see also Centroamerica Comercial, Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable (CAMCO) v. Michael MannWIPO Case No. D2016-1709 (“the Complainant, who is represented by specialist attorneys who appear to have specific expertise in this area, knew or ought to have known that this was the case.); Pick Enterprises, Inc., supra, (“The fact that Complainant is represented by counsel makes the filing of this Complaint all the more inexcusable.”)

The majority of the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

Contact a Trademark Litigation Law Firm

Attorney Steve Tip:  Look at the language of your WICP or MP law.  You will likely see elements of the tort such as "brought to harass", "no probable cause to bring", higher standards for those "holding themselves out to be experts," and it should be noted that the Restatement of Torts (and majority rule) does not recognize a "litigation privilege" in these instances.  

Contact us at (877) 276-5084 if you are dealing with a trademark or domain name dispute, cease and desist letter, federal trademark infringement lawsuit, cancellation of a federal trademark, or other IP-related legal matter.  You can also fill out the contact form and we will get in touch with you.

About the Author

Steve Vondran

Thank you for viewing our blogs, videos and podcasts. As noted, all information on this website is Attorney Advertising. Decisions to hire an attorney should never be based on advertising alone. Any past results discussed herein do not guarantee or predict any future results. All blogs are written by Steve Vondran, Esq. unless otherwise indicated. Our firm handles a wide variety of intellectual property and entertainment law cases from music and video law, Youtube disputes, DMCA litigation, copyright infringement cases involving software licensing disputes (ex. BSA, SIIA, Siemens, Autodesk, Vero, CNC, VB Conversion and others), torrent internet file-sharing (Strike 3 and Malibu Media), California right of publicity, TV Signal Piracy, and many other types of IP, piracy, technology, and social media disputes. Call us at (877) 276-5084. AZ Bar Lic. #025911 CA. Bar Lic. #232337

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Comments have been disabled.

Contact us for an initial consultation!

For more information, or to discuss your case or our experience and qualifications please contact us at (877) 276-5084. Please note that our firm does not represent you unless and until a written retainer agreement is signed, and any applicable legal fees are paid. All initial conversations are general in nature. Free consultations are limited to time and availability of counsel and will depend on the type of case you are calling about (no free consultations for other lawyers). All users and potential clients are bound by our Terms of Use Policies. We look forward to working with you!
The Law Offices of Steven C. Vondran, P.C. BBB Business Review

Menu