The most stupid domain dispute of the year
This month, WIPO delivered a verdict on one of the stupidest domain disputes: Member of the WIPO UDRP complaints committee, Richard Page , decided in favor of the current owner of the domain Beehive.com.
Although the rights of the Beehive.com host to this domain are not questioned, Page’s decision cannot be called correct: he should have accused the plaintiff of trying to retake the domain, even if the defendant did not request it.
The essence of the matter is as follows: Pistone & Wolder decided to create a website for its Internet project at Beehive.com, but this domain has been owned by Alliance Capital Management for at least ten years. Pistone & Wolder began negotiations to buy a domain name, but its owner refused to sell it at a price of less than $ 100,000.
')
Since Pistone & Wolder were not willing to pay such a sum for a domain, they decided to make a “knight's move”: they registered Weehive.com, LLC and sent a complaint to WIPO according to the UDRP procedure, in which Beehive.com demanded the right to Beehive.com.
According to the plaintiff, the firm’s business is based on its presence on the Internet; therefore, without rights to the corresponding domain, it cannot fulfill the business plan and receive income in general, while the defendant, although owning the domain for more than ten years, does not use it at all in their commercial activities.
In other words, people created a company with a name that matches the domain name in order to sue the domain from another person due to the fact that his rights to the domain “harm the business of the company”.
As we said above, Richard Page should have accused Beehive.com of trying to retake the domain. Moreover, due to the fact that such absurd attempts to get a foreign domain were made earlier, experts are in favor of reforming the UDRP procedure: that such complaints be rejected without delay, and the plaintiffs themselves were fined - a ridiculous argument about the Beehive.com domain stretched for as many as nine months: from March to December 2012.
Although the rights of the Beehive.com host to this domain are not questioned, Page’s decision cannot be called correct: he should have accused the plaintiff of trying to retake the domain, even if the defendant did not request it.
The essence of the matter is as follows: Pistone & Wolder decided to create a website for its Internet project at Beehive.com, but this domain has been owned by Alliance Capital Management for at least ten years. Pistone & Wolder began negotiations to buy a domain name, but its owner refused to sell it at a price of less than $ 100,000.
')
Since Pistone & Wolder were not willing to pay such a sum for a domain, they decided to make a “knight's move”: they registered Weehive.com, LLC and sent a complaint to WIPO according to the UDRP procedure, in which Beehive.com demanded the right to Beehive.com.
According to the plaintiff, the firm’s business is based on its presence on the Internet; therefore, without rights to the corresponding domain, it cannot fulfill the business plan and receive income in general, while the defendant, although owning the domain for more than ten years, does not use it at all in their commercial activities.
In other words, people created a company with a name that matches the domain name in order to sue the domain from another person due to the fact that his rights to the domain “harm the business of the company”.
As we said above, Richard Page should have accused Beehive.com of trying to retake the domain. Moreover, due to the fact that such absurd attempts to get a foreign domain were made earlier, experts are in favor of reforming the UDRP procedure: that such complaints be rejected without delay, and the plaintiffs themselves were fined - a ridiculous argument about the Beehive.com domain stretched for as many as nine months: from March to December 2012.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/162965/
All Articles