December 18, 2012 at 09:44This year's dumbest domain dispute
This month, WIPO issued a verdict on one of the stupidest domain disputes: Richard Page member of the WIPO UDRP Complaints Commission decided in favor of the current owner of the Beehive.com domain.
Although Beehive.com’s owner’s rights to this domain are not in doubt, Page's decision cannot be called correct: he should have accused the plaintiff of attempting to re-take the domain, even if the defendant did not demand it.
The bottom line is this: 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 on the purchase of a domain name, but its owner refused to sell it for less than $ 100,000.
Since Pistone & Wolder were not ready to pay such a sum for the domain, they decided to make a “knight's move”: they registered Behive.com, LLC and filed a complaint with WIPO according to the UDRP procedure, in which Beehive.com claimed the right for the domain Beehive.com.
According to the plaintiff, the firm’s business is based on its presence on the Internet, therefore, without the rights to the corresponding domain, it cannot fulfill the business plan and generally receive income, while the defendant, although owning the domain for more than ten years, does not use it at all in their business 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 because its domain rights “harm the business of the company”.
As we said above, Richard Page was to blame Beehive.com for attempting to re-take the domain. Moreover, due to the fact that similar absurd attempts to get someone else’s domain have been made earlier, experts speak out for reforming the UDRP procedure: so that such complaints are rejected without delay, and the plaintiffs are fined - an absurd dispute about Beehive.com domain lasted for nine months: from March to December 2012.
Although Beehive.com’s owner’s rights to this domain are not in doubt, Page's decision cannot be called correct: he should have accused the plaintiff of attempting to re-take the domain, even if the defendant did not demand it.
The bottom line is this: 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 on the purchase of a domain name, but its owner refused to sell it for less than $ 100,000.
Since Pistone & Wolder were not ready to pay such a sum for the domain, they decided to make a “knight's move”: they registered Behive.com, LLC and filed a complaint with WIPO according to the UDRP procedure, in which Beehive.com claimed the right for the domain Beehive.com.
According to the plaintiff, the firm’s business is based on its presence on the Internet, therefore, without the rights to the corresponding domain, it cannot fulfill the business plan and generally receive income, while the defendant, although owning the domain for more than ten years, does not use it at all in their business 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 because its domain rights “harm the business of the company”.
As we said above, Richard Page was to blame Beehive.com for attempting to re-take the domain. Moreover, due to the fact that similar absurd attempts to get someone else’s domain have been made earlier, experts speak out for reforming the UDRP procedure: so that such complaints are rejected without delay, and the plaintiffs are fined - an absurd dispute about Beehive.com domain lasted for nine months: from March to December 2012.