The Case of Limited Liability Company AV 808 v. Brian Cury, EarthCam, Inc. (Case No. D2019-0625)

The dispute of D2019-0625 under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) presents a complex scenario involving the domain name “carcam.com”. This case stands out due to its conclusion with a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding, highlighting the intricacies and potential pitfalls within domain name disputes.

Background and Parties Involved

The complainant in this case was Limited Liability Company AV 808, based in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. The respondent was Brian Cury, representing EarthCam, Inc., located in New Jersey, United States. The domain in dispute was “carcam.com”.

Factual Overview

The complainant, established in 2008, is known for digital car video recorders, dash cams, and related accessories. Its primary domain is “carcam.ru”, registered in 2010. The complainant also holds the International Trademark Registration for CARCAM, registered in 2013.

The respondent registered “carcam.com” in 1996, well before the complainant’s trademark registration and internet presence. The domain was initially used to redirect to other sites offering “EarthCam Carcam” products between 2002 and 2016.

Contentions of the Parties

Complainant’s Claims:

The domain name is identical to its CARCAM trademark.

The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in “carcam.com”.

The domain was registered and used in bad faith, evidenced by an alleged intention to sell the domain, its inactive status, and the respondent’s ownership of multiple domains.

Respondent’s Defense:

Lack of information regarding the complainant’s trademark rights.

The CARCAM trademark was not well-known or associated with the complainant.

The domain was registered long before the complainant’s trademark.

Use of the EARTHCAM trademark since 1996.

The complainant initiated contact and offered to buy the domain, which the respondent declined, leading to the UDRP complaint.

Panel’s Analysis and Decision

The panel found the domain name to be identical to the complainant’s trademark. However, they noted that the domain was registered well before the complainant’s trademark rights, making it unlikely that the respondent registered the domain in bad faith.

The panel concluded that the complainant failed to establish the respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain. They pointed out that mere passive holding and refusal to sell a domain name do not constitute bad faith, especially in a legitimate business of buying and selling domain names.

The case was notable for the panel’s decision on RDNH. The panel found that the complainant should have known that proving bad faith in this scenario was highly unlikely. The complaint was seen as an attempt to misuse the UDRP process, leading to a finding of RDNH against the complainant.

Conclusion

This case underscores the complexities involved in domain name disputes, especially concerning the timeline of trademark registrations versus domain registrations. It serves as a cautionary tale against the misuse of UDRP proceedings, highlighting the importance of thoroughly assessing the feasibility and legitimacy of such claims before proceeding.

The dispute of D2019-0625 under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) presents a complex scenario involving the domain name “carcam.com”. This case stands out due to its conclusion with a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding, highlighting the intricacies and potential pitfalls within domain name disputes. Background and Parties Involved The complainant in…