Panelist determines complex dispute is about IP licensing, not cybersquatting.
A fight over a domain name related to a restaurant in Scotland has resulted in a finding of reverse domain name hijacking (pdf).
The somewhat convoluted case involves a restaurant called Laila Edinburgh.
The Complainant is the current proprietor of this restaurant. The domain at issue, lailabrunchedinburgh.co.uk, was registered by a consultant on behalf of a previous restaurant in the location that went by this name.
The consultant claims that the intellectual property was licensed to the prior restaurant in the space, that she retained the IP after the restaurant folded, and that she had an “implied license” with the Complainant in this case.
It’s a bit more complex than that, however, and there’s an employment dispute pending.
Panelist David Kreider determined this is a dispute over IP licensing, not a cybersquatting dispute.
He also found that the Complainant tried reverse domain name hijacking by:
…misrepresenting and erroneously misstating important facts, including the correct name of her registered company which purportedly has rights in relevant intellectual property, and by making vague, unspecified and unsubstantiated conclusory allegations, not reasonably supported by the available documentary evidence…
Source: https://domainnamewire.com/
