Case Number: FA2008001910796
Complainant: Daniel A. Rosen, Inc. d/b/a Credit Repair Cloud
Represented by: Andrew Skale of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
In a rare finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking from a panel at the National Arbitration Forum, a company has been found guilty of RDNH for its attempt to grab the domain credithero.com from its owner. Daniel A. Rosen, Inc., doing business as Credit Repair Cloud, filed its case with the NAF on August 31, 2020, seeking to take the domain from Nemo Apps, LLC, owned by Michael Steele. The domain was under privacy protection at the time of the UDRP filing. Credit Repair Cloud secured the aid of the law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., with Andrew Skale acting as attorney for the firm.
Credit Repair Cloud, which offers credit monitoring and repair services, claimed the domain name was confusingly similar to its trademark of the term “Credit Heroes”, which dated to 2013. The company further argued that it held a common-law trademark dating to about 2009.
However, the respondent has owned the domain since 2007, which put the complainant in the immediate position of having to explain how a domain could be registered in bad faith, when the original owner’s purchase date preceded the registered trademark by several years.
The sole panelist in the case, Alan L. Limbury, found in favor of the respondent on that point, alone, stating there could not have been the possibility the domain owner could have knowingly tried to capitalize on a term that would not be registered for several years, and was, even presently, scarcely well-known.
“Here Complainant and its legal representative had clear knowledge of lack of Respondent’s bad faith registration because the domain name was registered before Complainant acquired trademark rights in the CREDIT HEROES mark,” Mr. Limbury wrote. He added that the complainant attempted to manipulate the decision of the board by omitting key provisions of a previous UDRP ruling the complaint was citing to support its UDRP case.
Mr. Limbury cited that act as evidence the complainant knew precisely what it was attempting, in an abuse of the proceeding. “Their clear knowledge is underscored by the deliberate omission from the passage cited in the Complaint,” Mr. Limbury said.
The RDNH ruling was handed up October 12, 2020.
Source: https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1910796.htm