Thanks for this Andrew. In theory, this case should be very straightforward and the panel should dismiss it on the basis that the complaint cannot establish that the .org site lacked rights or legitimate interests. I did a quick WHOIS search and I saw that the .org site was registered in 2006, whilst the .com was registered in 2004. This means that for the past 5 years, the .org site has been conducting its representation and advocacy through the particular site and has therefore been commonly known by it. So, under the UDRP, the panel should straightforwardly justify the legitimate interests of the .org site under the following provision: (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;

I don't think that the panel will find RDNH (they rarely do, despite the bullying and intimidation that takes place by trademark owners), but they should definitely rule in favour of the .org site. 

Please, let this list or myself know about the outcome of the case - if the panel rules against the .org site, this is something that we need to address publicly and create some voice. 

Thanks

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Law Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org


-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Τετάρτη, 11 Μαΐου 2011 12:56 πμ
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Example of Reverse Domain Name HIjacking Attempt

The UK's Open Rights Group was recently approached by the eco-labs.org non-profit who are being harassed by the commercial organisation ecolab over the use of the .org domain name eco-labs.org (the commercial web site is at ecolabs.com). There's a blog post by an eco-labs.org rep here:

http://ecolabs.posterous.com/ecolabs-under-assault#

This is the sort of attempt at reverse domain name hijacking that we need to be pressing ICANN to deal with:

.org was set up with the aim of supporting non-profits (although it has no official requirement in its terms that registration is only by non-profits); there is absolutely no attempt as passing off on the eco-labs.org site which does not compete in any way, as it offers free educational information, not chemicals and chemical services; there is no commercial content, not even advertising, on the eco-labs.org site which could fall under the ihateryanair.org.uk precedent (a Nominet DRP precedent, admittedly); as pointed out in the blog entry, the combination of two generic terms like "eco" and "lab" hardly seems legitimate for a trademark in the first place and certainly does not seem valid for a broad claim of ownership of all derivative domain names; there is no evidence of bad faith registration - eco-labs.org have been operating since 2007 providing educational information.

eco-labs.org is fighting the request and has taken suitable legal advice on dealing with this, but the lack of grounds for a claim strike me as one of the big problems with UDRP at present. There seems to be no requirement to present a prima facie case for bringing a UDRP request, and forcing a non-commercial user to take expensive legal advice and waste their time dealing with such spurious reverse domain name hijacking attempts.


-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/