• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

UDRP - Domain Name Disputes

  • Decision
  • Pendng
  • Statistics
You are here: Home / Decision / Safe-Banking(.com) acquired at premium, lost due to impersonation

Safe-Banking(.com) acquired at premium, lost due to impersonation

Recently Accuity, Inc. filed for a domain name dispute compant (UDRP) before WIPO claiming rights to the domain name <Safe-Banking.com>. A simple look at the domain decision looks like it is a case for bad faith as the current website had the same content and design as visible in archives here.

Visit the January 2022 archive here and Mid-2018 archive here:

The interesting thing to note is that the Domain Name was acquired at a premium from Godaddy Expired Domains for USD $625. The domain registrant could have retained it otherwise for sale, rather than indulging in impersonation.

Decision Update: 

Hence the Panelist Lynda M. Braun in the UDRP matter of <Safe-Banking.com> held:

“Panel finds that the Respondent knew that the Complainant had rights in the Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website identical to that of the Complainant’s original website, making clear that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and its SAFE BANKING Mark (having registered it after the Complainant inadvertently allowed it to lapse), thus demonstrating bad faith. Thus, it strains credulity to believe that the Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its SAFE BANKING Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name”.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Domain Lawyer Follow

We handle UDRP / Domain disputes as Cylaw Solutions, India... with 5 RDNH wins in 2021. Instagram/ LinkedIN/ Telegram/ ClubHouse - user: DomainLawyer

domainlawyers
Retweet on Twitter Domain Lawyer Retweeted
icadomains Internet Commerce @icadomains ·
23 Jun

#UDRP #CAC #TUCON.com (2015) denied. Complainant contends that Respondent only bought #DomainName for speculative purposes and did not transfer to him free of charge. Held Complainant allegations are contradictory and he fails to prove the second element @ https://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=104535

Reply on Twitter 1540025680926310403 Retweet on Twitter 1540025680926310403 4 Like on Twitter 1540025680926310403 7 Twitter 1540025680926310403
Retweet on Twitter Domain Lawyer Retweeted
icadomains Internet Commerce @icadomains ·
21 Jun

Does a Dominant User Mean a Non-exclusive Domain Name is Off-limits? Check out this week's UDRP Digest! https://www.internetcommerce.org/?p=3226 #UDRP #domains #domainlaw #domainUDRP

Reply on Twitter 1539287579421556736 Retweet on Twitter 1539287579421556736 5 Like on Twitter 1539287579421556736 7 Twitter 1539287579421556736
Retweet on Twitter Domain Lawyer Retweeted
icadomains Internet Commerce @icadomains ·
21 Jun

#UDRP http://Pay.com denied. Complainant has rights in #PAYCOM since Feb. 2000. Respondent acquired #Domain in Nov. 2000 and making a bona fide use of as a software platform. Held Respondent cannot have registered or used the domain in bad faith @ https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1993513.htm

Reply on Twitter 1539146616351096832 Retweet on Twitter 1539146616351096832 2 Like on Twitter 1539146616351096832 7 Twitter 1539146616351096832
Retweet on Twitter Domain Lawyer Retweeted
icadomains Internet Commerce @icadomains ·
17 Jun

#UDRP #LOTTOARVONTA.com denied. Held Complainant owns TM for word "lotto" with additional elements, rather its applications for word #LOTTO got rejected due to non-distinctiveness. Keywords mean 'Draw Lottery' in #Finnish, put to use in descriptive sense @ https://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=104551

Reply on Twitter 1537790973324820480 Retweet on Twitter 1537790973324820480 2 Like on Twitter 1537790973324820480 5 Twitter 1537790973324820480
Retweet on Twitter Domain Lawyer Retweeted
icadomains Internet Commerce @icadomains ·
15 Jun

#UDRP #artmeta.io denied. Complainant is in the process of developing and creating a #metaverse project “ArtMeta”, in which the Respondent collaborated. Held present case essentially describes a business dispute and is not a typical cybersquatting case @
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2022/dio2022-0018.pdf

Reply on Twitter 1537075621540798466 Retweet on Twitter 1537075621540798466 2 Like on Twitter 1537075621540798466 9 Twitter 1537075621540798466
Load More

Recent Posts

  • International Olympic Committee (IOC) files UDRP over keyword: aoyunhui
  • INDRP/1524: CGI.in v. CGI.com (Complaint denied)
  • Safe-Banking(.com) acquired at premium, lost due to impersonation
  • Pidilite fails to renew domain name Fevicol.com, files UDRP
  • Vogue (Advance Magazine Publishers) lose UDRP against Indian Travel Agency in VogueTravels.com

Recent Comments

  • Davinderpal S Bhatia on Cathay Pacific files UDRP over 25 year old domain Cathay.com

Copyright © 2022 · Powered by WPMart

  • Decision
  • Pendng
  • Statistics