“…there was essentially no evidence in support of the necessary facts,” the panel wrote.
Attorney John Berryhill has his second reverse domain name hijacking win of the week.
Earlier this week, he got an RDNH for his client in the GoToHale.com case. Today, it’s RDNH for MundoNatural.com.
Mundo Natural, Inc. is a vitamin and supplement company in Puerto Rico.
The company’s UDRP filing was apparently light on facts despite the Complainant being represented by counsel. For example, the company’s trademark claims its first use in commerce was in 1998 despite only registering the mark in 2022. Yet, it appears that it did not provide proof of rights pre-dating the domain owner’s registration of the domain in 2015.
The three-person World Intellectual Property Organization panel detailed why this case was filed in bad faith:
The Panel finds that this situation is one in which a finding of RDNH is appropriate. As already noted in the discussion above about the supplemental filings, the Complainant is represented by counsel who should be familiar with the relevant aspects of UDRP practice. More specifically, in this case, there was essentially no evidence in support of the necessary facts, most notably facts relating to trademark rights arising pre-trademark registration. Similarly, the Complainant did not address how the disputed domain name was initially registered prior to any proven trademark rights. And the Complainant should have, but did not, address whether the Respondent targeted the Complainant. Finally, the Panel believes that the Complainant’s failure to address longstanding precedent that states that trafficking in domain names consisting of dictionary terms or commonly used phrases (as it is the case here) is not per se illegitimate contributed to the abusive nature of this proceeding.
Beléndez Law Offices represented Mundo Natural.