WIPO Panel Finds Spanish Entrepreneur Magazine Tried To Hijack Upside-Down Domain Name – Domain Name Wire

Panel reprimands publisher for cybersquatting complaint.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panel found (pdf) that Revista Emprendedores SL engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

The company publishes a magazine in Spanish called Borrowerswhich translates to Contractors In English.

He filed a cybersquatting complaint against emprendedores.com, a site used to promote online courses on starting a business. This domain belongs to Rafel Mayol, Emprendedores Online LLC. He acquired the estate for $45,000 in 2019.

Notably, the defendant has a European Union trademark for emprendedores.com and an additional registered trademark in the United States for the same mark.

The panel found the plaintiff to be in default and agreed with the defendant on the issues of legitimate rights or interests and bad faith recording and use.

He went further by finding the reverse domain name hijacking. The three-member panel noted that:

i) the Complainant, who is represented by a lawyer, should have appreciated the weakness of his case and the fact that the term “emprendedores” included in the disputed domain name cannot be exclusively referred to the Complainant;

ii) the Complainant tried to claim some notoriety of its brand EMPRENDEDORES by simply providing some broadcast numbers from 1997 and mainly its broadcast numbers from 2020 and 2021, while it did not even attempt to prove – even in its additional filing – any notoriety on the date of 2019, the date on which the disputed domain name was acquired by the respondent;

iii) the Complainant asserted that the Respondent copies the colors and stylizations of its website based on current uses, while the evidence submitted by the Respondent shows differences in 2019. Further, the Complainant failed to mention that its online courses only recently started in 2022, thus attempting to suggest to the Panel that such courses have existed for some time and before the Respondent began using the disputed domain name for its online courses; and

(iv) given the circumstances of the case and given the Respondent’s existing trademark registrations for EMPRENDEDORES, Plaintiff’s attorneys should have understood that this case is a trademark dispute that cannot be decided under the political, since the cancellation of trademark registrations is a competence of national and regional administrative and/or judicial bodies.

On the last point, I wrote on this topic yesterday. There was yet another “Trademark Dispute as UDRP” (pdf) ruling today.

And what about people trying to claim exclusive rights to the word entrepreneur?

The Complainant was represented by ECIJA and the domain owner was represented by Law.es.

Comments are closed.