Case Number: D2019-2991
Complainant: Kevac S.r.l.
Represented by: LS LexJus Sinacta
An Italian manufacturer of vacuum equipment has been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in its effort to acquire the domain kevac.com using the UDRP process. Kevac S.r.l., which was represented by the law firm of LS LexJus Sinacta, filed its complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization on December 4, 2019. The respondent, Eweb Development, Inc., of Canada, was represented by Zak Muscovitch.
The vacuum equipment supplier stated in its complaint that it had held several trademarks for the term “kevac”, many dating from 2012 and 2013, which directly correspond to its name and business identity. The company also noted it had purchased a number of domains in various ccTLDs, all containing the stylized word mark, “kevac”. Kevac S.r.l. further stated Eweb could only have registered the domain name kevac.com in order to profit from the resale of the domain.
However, Eweb Development responded that its rights and legitimate interests in the domain included the right to purchase generic and stylized non-trademark terms for resale, as that was part of its business model of website and brand development. It further argued that its registration of the domain, kevac.com, predates the trademarks of the Italian company by three years. Eweb Development also argued there would be little probability a North American company would be aware of a small, Italian-based vacuum company that operated almost-exclusively in Europe.
Eweb Development further argued detrimental reliance in dealing with Kevac S.r.l. on at least one occasion, prior to the UDRP filing. Eweb noted Kevac S.r.l. had used Eweb’s online inquiry form to request a sale price of the domain name, kevac.com. The quote request form included a “Terms of Quote Request”, requiring users to stipulate to specific indemnities, including making no claims of ownership or other rights in the domain.
The three-member WIPO panel agreed, observing the Italian company seemed to engage in deceptive practices in order to acquire kevac.com.
“[I]t does appear that the Complainant misrepresented its position to the Respondent in its attempt to purchase the disputed domain name, and provided a somewhat incomplete account of the pre-Complaint communications with the Respondent in the Complaint itself,” the panel wrote, adding, “the Panel considers that the Complaint was brought in an attempt to wrest the disputed domain name from the Respondent following a failed attempt to buy it.”
The RDNH ruling was handed up March 11, 2020.
Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2019-2991