The operator of a live cams adult website has been found to have attempted reverse domain name hijacking in a recent legal case.
Viking Exchange & Marketing Inc., which operates the site voyeurhouse.com, filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against the owner of voyeur-house.tv. In its defense, the respondent claimed that its website garnered more traffic than that of the complainant.
The disputed domain name has been active since 2015, while the complainant recently secured a trademark for VoyeurHouse, stating a first-use date of 2000.
In his ruling, panelist Alan L. Limbury determined that the complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking, noting:
“The Complaint alleges that the domain name should be viewed as registered and used in bad faith, asserting that the respondent intentionally chose a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, VOYEURHOUSE, to exploit its established reputation. However, the complainant had no recognized reputation in its then non-existent mark when the respondent selected the domain name. The Panel believes that the complainant must have known its assertion was false, leading to the conclusion that the complaint was filed in bad faith and represents an abuse of the administrative process.”
However, this reasoning may not accurately reflect the situation. Viking’s trademark cites a first use in 2000, which suggests that the respondent could have registered the domain based on the reputation of Viking’s site. The crux of the issue is that Viking did not demonstrate usage of the domain before 2015 or provide evidence of rights predating its trademark application, ultimately dooming its case.
You Might Be Interested In
