A UDRP panel has determined that Cronos Group, a Canadian cannabis firm, engaged in “reverse domain name hijacking” in its bid to obtain the domain CronosGroup.com. The company, which operates under TheCronosGroup.com, sought to acquire the disputed domain from its owner through the Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre after finding the asking price too high.
The domain in question was purchased for $2,849 in a SnapNames expired domain auction in 2023. Cronos Group Inc., which was established in 2017, had approached the current domain owner with a request to buy the domain, only to file a UDRP complaint when the price was deemed excessive.
The domain owner argued that it was unaware of Cronos Group Inc. when acquiring the domain and noted its practice of acquiring domains with the format keyword+group, as well as the common use of the name “Cronos” by other entities.
The panel found that the domain was not registered or used in bad faith. It ruled that this case was an instance of “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking. The panel’s decision emphasized that the domain was acquired before Cronos Group Inc. started using its trademark, and the name was not exclusive to the complainant. The ruling noted:
“What may appear as Plan B to a respondent may to a complainant simply be protecting its trademark from what it regards as predation. The fact that supports RDNH in this case hinges on both the commonness of the term ‘Cronos Group’ and the general use by others offering non-infringing goods or services using the same commercial sign. Unless there is evidence of actual knowledge of a complainant and its mark and acquisition for an illicit purpose, no inference can be drawn of bad faith.”
The panel also acknowledged that the complainant, represented in-house, might not have been familiar with UDRP jurisprudence but stressed that this did not excuse initiating the UDRP proceeding. The decision highlighted that without evidence showing the respondent’s knowledge of the complainant’s mark or illicit intent, the case was deemed an attempt to unfairly deprive the respondent of its domain rights.
The panel’s consideration of the domain’s prior registration status, even though the key UDRP date concerns the current registrant’s acquisition, reinforced the view that the name’s commonality played a significant role in the decision.
You Might Be Interested In
