货运融资公司试图反向域名劫持

导语：2025年4月11日，一家货运融资公司因试图通过误导性的域名抢注争议将域名从.co升级到.com而被裁定为反向域名劫持。

Andrew Allemann[36] 1 Comment[37] April 11, 2025
**Company tries to upgrade from .co to .com through a misguided cybersquatting dispute.**
The words “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” in yellow on a black background[39]
A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found Dakota Financial, LLC guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in a dispute over the domain name haulpay.com.
The panelist determined[38] (pdf) that the company, which provides financial services for freight companies at haulpay.co, filed the case despite having no chance to succeed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
The domain name was registered by Pavlo Karpin of Automotive Associates, LLC in 2012. That was five years before Dakota Financial claimed to have used the term “Haulpay.” Thus, the domain name couldn’t have been registered in bad faith to target the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent said he registered the domain as part of a broader portfolio of logistics and payment-related domains, and has worked in the vehicle transport industry since at least 2005.
Dakota Financial alleged that the respondent was cybersquatting by asking $500,000 for the domain name. However, Dakota Financial previously tried to buy the domain name from Karpin.
Panelist Frederick M. Abbott said Dakota Financial “provided almost no evidentiary support for the assertions in its Complaint,” and that it was the respondent who supplied more information about both parties.
Calling the case a “blatant misuse of the UDRP,” Abbott found reverse domain name hijacking:
> This case involves blatant misuse of the UDRP on the part of Complainant. Complainant was aware that the disputed domain name was registered in 2012, and that Complainant did not in any case establish trademark rights before 2017, if that early (bearing in mind that a claim of first use does not constitute evidence of first use). Complainant was aware that Respondent was the owner of the disputed domain name before it filed its Complaint. It had negotiated with Respondent prior to filing its Complaint. Complainant did not suggest that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name more recently than its initial registration. Complainant’s legal theory in its Complaint is that Respondent should have been more accommodating in price negotiations, seeming to have concluded Respondent’s refusal to accommodate its purchase price offer is evidence of bad faith. It is not apparent how Complainant developed this theory.
> The Panel notes that Complainant provided almost no evidentiary support for the assertions in its Complaint. Respondent’s Response provided more evidence regarding Complainant and its business. It appears that Complainant sought to acquire the disputed domain name with the bare minimum of attention to developing a factual or legal record.
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth represented the Complainant, and Lewis & Lin, LLC represented the domain name owner.

本文转载自互联网公开信息，如涉及侵权，可联系删除

本文来源于Domain Name Wire、https://domainnamewire.com/2025/04/11/freight-financing-company-tries-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/#comments、作者Andrew Allemann