UDRP Filed Against CQC.com Domain Name (Updated) | DomainInvesting.com
101 Domain

UDRP Filed Against CQC.com Domain Name (Updated)

8

Screen Shot 2017-01-25 at 3.30.21 PM

A UDRP has been filed against the high value CQC.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This is WIPO Case D2017-0129. I believe it is the first UDRP filed against a three letter .com (LLL.com) so far in 2017.

CQC.com is currently registered to Earthlink, the IT services and communications company headquartered in Atlanta. I am not sure if the domain name is owned by Earthlink or if it is owned by a customer. When I visited CQC.com today, it showed a MyEarthlink landing page.

CQC.com was created in October of 1997, making the domain name nearly 20 years old. Domain names like this have been very popular in China, especially with the repeating letter C. Estibot values this domain name at over $150,000. I am not sure how accurate this figure is, but I would imagine the domain name would sell for high 5 or low 6 figures, although the Chinese market is not my area of expertise.

The complainant in this UDRP filing is a company called Clasen Quality Chocolate, Inc. It looks like they operate on the Clasen.us domain name, and when I searched Google for the company name, the meta title of the domain name was Clasen Quality Chocolate. It wasn’t until I got to the company’s website that I saw the company’s logo makes use of the CQC acronym.

UDRP complainants need to prove three elements in order to win the complaint. Judging only by what I see, I would be pretty shocked if this UDRP succeeds. I simply can’t imagine a panel/panelist will find that this 19 year old domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

I would not be surprised to learn that the company tried to acquire the domain name and didn’t get a response (or a response they liked) so they filed the UDRP. Perhaps there is more to it than what I can see, so we shall await the UDRP decision to see what is going on here.

Update: According to UDRPSearch.com, the complaint was denied. The decision was just published on WIPO’s website. Reverse domain name hijacking “because this Complaint appears, on balance, to be more misconceived than malicious in nature.”


About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has sold seven figures worth of domain names in the last five years. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest.


Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | | Facebook | Email

Comments (8)

    Steve

    With no real penalty for trying to steal these assets why wouldn’t this parasite company go on a fishing expedition?

    January 26th, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    Pat W

    There should be a Minimum Mandatory Penalty of a — $100,000.00 US Dollars — Penalty of any Scumbag trying to use — ANY illegal REASON or SCAM — to Steal a Domain Name… 50% for the Victim & 50% for WIPO !!!

    January 28th, 2017 at 8:50 am

      Elliot Silver

      The inverse is that complainants would likely want a similar penalty for domain registrants who lose a domain name in a UDRP complaint. That doesn’t seem like a good idea.

      In reply to Pat W | January 28th, 2017 at 8:53 am

      Pat W

      Correction: Totally Disregard my use of the word “Scumbag” in my response to this Story — My Mistake — and Definitely Not a Correct Word for this Person… This is a good Domainer and Business guy trying to take advantage of a High Risk Percentage Possibility…

      In reply to Elliot Silver | January 31st, 2017 at 9:14 am

    Pat W

    #1 – The current owner and business man of CQC.COM — is Being attacked with a Very Weak an Frivolous UDRP — WIPO Case — IMO… He has used CQC.COM — for 19 Years for His Large Business at — MyEarthLink.com… This is a Totally innocent Person — who has Nothing to Gain and a Lot to Lose ( 1/2 Million Dollars approx) by being Attacked with an Extremely Weak WIPO Case…
    #2 – The UDRP Complainant is their to for Two Specific Reasons IMO: Reason #1: To win a $500,000 Dollar Name — CQC.COM — Domain Name with Little or No Risk… Reason #2: To Hopefully Have a WIPO Judge / or Judges — Beleive This Extremely Weak WIPO Case that he has a Right to this — 1/2 Million Dollar Domain Name — that has been Owned and Used in the same Business & same Person for 19 Years !!!
    #3 – The WIPO Judges are wise to This Type of Situation — and for last “4” Years and have been making Excellent Judgement Calls on these types of case’s !!!
    #4 – Note — For the Record — Rick Schwartz — The Domain King — had a Lot to Do with Solving — This Major Domain Name Investment & Business Problem !!! >>> Note: Google Why Reverse Domain Name Hijacking needs to be a Real Penalty and the Most Comprehensive List of RDNH cases…

    January 29th, 2017 at 8:49 am

    Elliot Silver

    Complaint was denied, according to UDRPSearch.com:

    http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2017-0129

    March 2nd, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    Mr. Karl B. Hensel

    The attempt to steal the domain is not surprising. Corporations and entities with capital resources do this all the time. The defendant should now counter sue for damages both financial and suffering as this must have been taxing on ones time and personal health!

    March 3rd, 2017 at 11:03 am

    John Berryhill

    “this Complaint appears, on balance, to be more misconceived than malicious in nature.”

    This is the classic UDRP double standard. If you frequent various domain forums and roll your eyes as I often do at some of the notions domainers believe about trademarks, it’s pretty clear that a lot of domain names are registered by people who simply don’t know any better or are otherwise mistaken or misled about trademark issues.

    Ignorance or misconceptions are not a defense to findings of “bad faith” against domain registrants.

    Remarkably, these excuses are regularly made by UDRP panelists on behalf of complainants who are similarly and profoundly ignorant of the UDRP.

    What is remarkable about this double standard is that it is advanced by UDRP panelists on behalf of professional attorneys who bring these kinds of cases. When an attorney doesn’t know what he or she is doing, it is far more than a matter of simply being ignorant. It is a violation of a professional duty. An attorney has an affirmative duty to be competent, and not to go off an engage in actions about which they are clearly ignorant.

    “Lack of malice” should not even enter into the equation when an attorney has advanced a case which the attorney should have known was frivolous.

    The same standard should, at the very least, be applied to both sides of a UDRP dispute, and it should be even more important when an attorney has engaged in clear incompetence. The legal profession is supposed to be self-regulating, but I more frequently find these days that an inordinate proportion of my colleagues in the profession simply do not give a damn.

    March 3rd, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *

Website