A panelist from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has determined that Seed of Life Center for Early Learning and Preschool, Inc. attempted to reverse hijack the domain name SeedsOfLifeChildcare.com. The Seattle-based complainant, which operates four childcare facilities in the area and claims to have begun operations in 2017, can be found at SeedOfLifeLLC.com.
The disputed domain is registered to Seeds of Life Child Care LLC, a childcare provider with a single location in Brooklyn, New York. Given the circumstances, it was evident that the Seattle entity would not prevail in this case. The complainant failed to convince the panelist that the domain owner lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain or that the registration was made in bad faith.
The complaint highlighted a misunderstanding of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which is tailored for clear cases of cybersquatting rather than trademark disputes, which are more appropriately settled in court. One key limitation of the UDRP is that it does not provide options for settlement or transition time; it only allows for the transfer of a domain or its retention by the current owner. Transferring a domain from an active business could severely impact its operations.
Panelist W. Scott Blackmer found it somewhat amusing that the complainant suggested competition existed between childcare services so geographically separated. He noted that while the respondent’s use of a privacy service was unclear, the respondent’s website clearly advertised its business and provided full contact information, enabling the complainant to send a cease-and-desist letter. The respondent did not respond to this letter, and many might choose not to when confronted with a claim of competition between childcare facilities located 2,851 miles apart.
In concluding the case, Blackmer noted that the complainant, despite being represented by counsel, inadequately addressed crucial issues regarding the rights and interests related to the domain name. The panel found that the domain was already in use by an established business and that the highly localized nature of such service businesses rendered the complainant’s claims of direct competition far-fetched. Blackmer pointed out that the complainant had failed to perform due diligence, neglecting to check the company registration database in New York, where the respondent’s business is based, as indicated on its website. Based on these findings, the panel determined that there was an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.
You Might Be Interested In
