Slots.net UDRP Denied (1 Viewing)

1. The Parties
Complainant is Novomatic AG, Austria, represented by GEISTWERT Kletzer Messner Mosing Schnider
Schultes Rechtsanwälte OG, Austria.
Respondent is DomainClip Domains Inc, Canada, represented by Gowling WLG LLP, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <slots.net> is registered with Safenames Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

Click to expand...

Respondent also owns Slots.ca domain
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2022/d2022-4590.pdf

It doesn't take a legal genius to know this is an absurd dispute at face value. It should have been a clear case of RDNH.

Brad

Yeah, why wasn't this a RDNH?

I just read it and although the obvious decision was correctly made (duh!) the reasons for not finding an RDNH are truly bizarre and I wonder if this panelist even has even a tenuous grasp of the English language. Either that or....

She essentially said "all the complainant's false and concocted reasons for bringing this UDRP do not fall under the category of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Huh? I don't think that means what she think it means.

What wasn't clear was the existence of the subdomain in question, and if that was "manufactured" evidence due to a wildcard subdomain, or a targeted URL actually created by the registrant. I could understand that if a well known company's name was being used in a malicious way as a subdomain, that the primary domain could become subject to a legitimate complaint. Imagine you're advertising Microsoft.dn.ca with services to buy hosting, email, software, or anything else that microsoft does. They might actually have a legitimate complaint. So I found it very interesting to read that a complaint based on a subdomain would be out of scope for UDRP.

But there was absolutely no proof this "mystery subdomain" ever existed and there was no DNS record stating it ever did- it sounded like a big pile of BS on the part of the complainant, like they were trying to hoodwink a non-techie panelist into believing their "voodoo magic".

Who knows what would have happened had the domain owner not responded - like in other similar cases, the complainant's steaming pile of BS probably would have smelled like pumpkin pie.

DomainRecap said:

But there was absolutely no proof this "mystery subdomain" ever existed and there was no DNS record stating it ever did- it sounded like a big pile of BS on the part of the complainant, like they were trying to hoodwink a non-techie panelist into believing their "voodoo magic".

Click to expand...

I too was looking for that evidence which wasn't there I thought. But thanks for confirming that you noticed that too.