One panelist strongly disagreed with the other people.
The majority of a Environment Mental House Business panel has dominated (pdf) that Reza IP Holdings LLC tried to reverse area title hijack reza.com.
The jewellery enterprise, which is named immediately after Alexandre Reza and utilizes the area AlexandreReza.com, attempted to get the title from Taha Alireza, a member of a outstanding Saudi family members.
It certain seems like it was an insurmountable scenario for the Complainant to gain. Take into account:
– The respondent’s surname is Alireza. Reza is a well-liked surname in Saudi Arabia and Alireza is a blend of the names “Ali” and “Reza”, published as the two text “Ali” and “Reza” in indigenous Arabic. His household is effectively recognised in the place the Respondent’s grandfather Mohammed Alireza was the previous Saudi Finance Minister and Ambassador to France from 1972 to 1976, his brother, the Respondent’s terrific uncle, served as the Saudi Ambassador to the United States from 1975 to 1979 and that the Respondent’s father, Youssef, is a founder, director and shareholder of the loved ones enterprise the Reza Investment decision Corporation
– The respondent’s relatives owns Reza Financial investment Co. Ltd. The respondent was in the system of marketing the area to the firm prior to the continuing.
On these points alone, proving that the Respondent lacks legal rights or authentic pursuits appears to be extremely hard.
And yet, even even though two panelists located this case so egregious that they identified it was reverse area title hijacking, a 3rd panelist dominated that the domain must be transferred to the complainant.
Here’s what the the greater part, consisting of Luca Barbero and Richard Lyon, explained about reverse domain identify hijacking:
i) the Complainant, which is represented by counsel, should have appreciated the weak point of its situation and the point that the title “Reza” encompassed in the disputed area title can not be completely referable to the Complainant
ii) the Complainant ignores numerous settled UDRP precedents, amongst them the requirement of evidence to guidance critical allegations, not recognizing that warehousing domain names is not for every se incorrect, that reaction to an inquiry from a trademark operator to obtain the disputed area name is not ordinarily inappropriate, and that the order selling price of a domain title not solely referable to a trademark proprietor is a issue for the marketplace and not for the Panel
iii) the Complainant has attempted to mislead the Panel about its anonymous inquiry to obtain the disputed area identify, as the description in the Complaint (presenting the request as resolved by the Complainant) differs materially from the correspondence annexed to the Reaction
iv) the instances of the circumstance exhibit that this may perhaps be a speculative “plan B case” released by the Complainant immediately after the failure to purchase the disputed domain name – by way of an anonymous third-get together email handle – from the Respondent.
The greater part also mentioned:
The Complainant is not excused by only studying of the proposed transfer to Reza Expenditure Company just after filing the Criticism. Initially, basic pre-Criticism because of diligence these as a Google look for would have disclosed that reza is a popular name and frequently used in organization names. Second, the Panel majority finds it hard to feel that an person himself named Reza would not be conscious of the ubiquity of that identify. Third, the Complainant at a minimum “had an obligation below this Rule [3(b)(xiii)] to explain to the Panel why” the Respondent’s surname and firm name fell exterior the safe and sound harbor of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policies. See Wall-Road.com, LLC v. Marcus Kocak / World wide web Chance Leisure (Sports activities) Confined, Sportingbet PLC, WIPO Case No. D2012-1193. The Complainant did not even handle the probability that the Respondent picked the disputed domain name since of his surname, while this sort of circumstance could be certainly inferred from the registrant’s title shown in the general public WhoIs information and indeed in the caption and textual content of the Grievance. Disregarding settled Coverage precedent on your own justifies a finding of abuse, see Liquid Diet Inc. v. liquidnutrition.com/Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Circumstance No. D2007-1598.
Panelist Emmanuelle Ragot located that the Respondent lacks legal rights or authentic passions:
One of the Panelists, in its place, finds that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent lacks legal rights or respectable interests in the disputed domain title according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Plan in watch of the correspondence of the disputed area title with the Complainant’s properly-identified trademark REZA and the pertinent volume of money requested by the Respondent to transfer the disputed domain title, which suggests a speculative intent.
So I guess it does not subject that the Respondent’s surname is Ali Reza and his family owns Reza Expense Firm? The Respondent did present to offer the domain for $250,000 when approached but did not know who the inquirer represented.
On the issue of Registration and Terrible Religion, Ragot uncovered:
1 of the Panelists is of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed area identify in bad faith mainly because the Complainant acquired track record in its trademark, also regarded and utilized as REZA to distinguish jewelries solutions internationally, for yrs long ahead of 2016 in the jewellery sector. Without a doubt, in 1997, press reviews pointed out the Workers at REZA’s Paris response following the facts of Woman Diana’s death in Paris (as she was donning a single of REZA’s rings) and the consultation of any webpages like Wikipedia relating this tragic party refers to REZA.
For that reason, this Panelist concludes that the Respondent have to have had expertise, and could not ignore, the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed area name.
The Panelist also finds that the mother nature of the disputed area identify enhances the fake perception that the disputed domain name is someway officially related to the Complainant, as it may well be perceived as made use of in link with just one of the Complainant’s formal internet websites for sale, causing interrogation on the financial scenario of the Complainant. Appropriately, by registering the disputed area title, the Respondent has created a probability of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, as it is probable that the disputed area name could mislead Web consumers into contemplating that it is, in some way, affiliated with the Complainant.
The similar Panelist also states that the existence of an give for sale to the community of a domain name on the web page to which it directs is an indication of terrible religion on the element of the Respondent (see Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is for Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2002-0787 and Ferrari S.p.A v. Allen Ginsberg, WIPO Case No. D2002-0033) and that the give to provide the disputed domain name for USD 250,000 is an indicator that the Respondent registered the disputed area title for the sole purpose of reselling it to a 3rd party and obtaining financial acquire inside of the that means of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
The Respondent’s counsel, John Berryhill, told me that the Wikipedia write-up was not submitted in evidence. John could not track down this reference in a Wikipedia post about Lady Diana’s loss of life, and I simply cannot discover it both, but probably it was in a overseas-language edition.
According to her WIPO profile, Ragot is a French countrywide practising in Luxembourg. The Complainant’s attorney at Dennemeyer & Associates S.A is also in Luxembourg and each studied at the same school (at distinct situations).
I would assume WIPO would critique a circumstance in which panelists experienced such strongly differing views.
