Pool company spat results in reverse domain name hijacking

Company filed a cybersquatting complaint without disclosing its long history with the domain owner.

A fight between pool construction companies in Texas resulted in a misguided UDRP filing.

Pools123 Houston LLC filed a dispute over Pools123Texas.com, which is registered by Aquamarine Pools of Texas.

The case involved a confusing set of facts, but in a nutshell, both the Complainant and Respondent had been in a business relationship for some time, and the Complainant didn’t adequately disclose this relationship in its filing.

The Respondent provided proof that it registered Pools123.com many years ago, yet the Complainant’s counsel argued that its client was the registrant.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, a World Intellectual Property Organization panel wrote:

Given an apparent long history of dealings between Complainant and its principals, on one side, and Respondent on the other, the Panel considers that Complainant has breached a duty of candor towards the Panel. Complainant failed to acknowledge a history of commercial involvement between the parties and the Complainant’s knowledge that Respondent’s “pools123.com” website long predated their registration of the POOLS123 mark. Complainant must have been aware that Complainant could not establish that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name well before it refused to withdraw its Complaint during a mutually agreed suspension and this essentially compelled Respondent to expend substantial resources defending a spurious Complaint.

Chamberlain Hrdlicka represented the Complainant, and ESQwire.com PC represented the domain name owner.