Real Estate Optimization Company Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – Domain Name Wire

By Trey T. Deacon Last updated Mar 19, 2022

He could have bought the domain for just $6,095.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel found that Bookker Corporate SLU and The Graffter SL attempted to hijack the reverse domain name bookker.com.

The companies provide tools to optimize office and parking spaces and operate on bookkercorp.com.

HugeDomains acquired the domain in 2014, before the first Complainant existed and before any evidence that the Complainants had trademark rights in the term book. The complainant inquired about purchasing the domain and was told it cost $6,095.

Instead of paying that price, the plaintiff paid a PMOI panel and attorney to file a lawsuit, which probably cost somewhere near that amount. And then it’s lost. And was found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. So now there are no more charges and he still doesn’t have the domain. I imagine the price of the domain will go up now that HugeDomains had to pay to defend it.

Upon finding the reverse domain name hijacking, the three-person panel wrote:

…No one knows better than the Plaintiffs that they have no rights predating those of the Respondent – and yet this is what they stated in the Complaint and certified their statements under Paragraph 3(b) (xiv) of the Regulations. The Panel considers this conduct of the Complainant as an attempt to mislead it. The only logical conclusion from the fact that the Respondent could not have known of the Complainants’ non-existent activity at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name is that it did not register it in bad faith. The Complainants must have realized this, but nevertheless, they pursued the Complaint after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from the Respondent, without a plausible legal basis, and based only on the slightest allegation without any supporting evidence. Additionally, this is another example of a “Plan B” scenario where the Complainants only filed this case after attempting to negotiate the price of the domain name. The UDRP should not be viewed as a backup plan to sue registrants after unsuccessful attempts to negotiate the price of a domain name. This is particularly glaring given the fact that the Complainants’ rights did not arise until well after the registration of the disputed domain name.

Margareto IP represented the plaintiffs. ESQwire.com PC represented HugeDomains.