Kellogg is Abusing the UDRP in its Effort to Secure Eggo.com.

A recent NAF decisions illustrates a problem which domainers have been griping about for years: The UDRP can be used by overly aggressive corporations and their attorneys in order to hijack domain names in which they have no rights.  The latest NAF decision in the case of Kellogg North America v Gregor Illustrates abuse of the UDRP by trademark holders all too well.  Fortunately, the NAF panelist came to the correct result, finding that complainant failed to establish a lack of legitimate interest or bad faith under the facts presented.

Several factors lead me to the conclusion that Kellogg and its attorney full well that they were abusing the UDRP when they brought their claims of cybersquatting against the registrant of eggo.com.

First of all, Kellogg had significant communication with the respondent prior to bringing the UDRP arbitration.  Kellogg initiated contact with respondent with a “cease and desist letter”. Kellogg’s attorneys then offered to purchase the domain name.  When the price proved to be too high, they decided to take a chance under the UDRP.

Secondly, eggo.com is clearly a consulting firm operating as a legitimate business.  A review of their website establishes this fact.  There are no links on the site which have any relationships to Kellogg’s Eggo Waffles and no overlap at all in the business between the two companies.

In short, respondent could have easily asked for a reverse domain hijacking decision under the facts of this case.  It is likely that the panelist would have found reverse domain name hijacking by Kellogg under the facts presented.  It is hard to believe that counsel for Kellogg could have been so unsophisticated under the UDRP so as to believe that they had a legitimate chance of success in securing this domain.  It is far more likely that they simply “took a chance” that they might obtain a panelist to render an abhorrent UDRP decision.

Comments

[Cybersquatting defense]

Is there a compiled list of cyber-squatting defenses that are out there? I need to see if any squatting defenses might apply to my situation.

[Enrico S.]

Keep in mind that the right result was reached here. The domain name did not transfer, despite Kellogg's unrefuted trademark rights. The UDRP and arbitration system worked.

But I understand what you are saying. there are closer calls which result in domain transfer where valuable property rights move from one person to another without compensation. And there are few disincentives for large companies to try the UDRP as a tactic to cheaply take control of domain names. Domain dispute law is subject to abuse.

[Trademark Abuse]

This is a great example of trademark abuse. How would you like it if someone tried to steal your $500,000 vacation home on the seashore for nothing paid. What other law besides the UDRP allows for such a thing to occur.

[Beth]

$11,000 dollar offer for eggo.com? And a demand for $100,000 for the domain name.

Kellogg blew it. That letter domain is worth $500,000 easy, perhaps more given its value to Kellogg and the non-infringing use. If I were the respondent, I would increase the price by a multiple of 10x.

[Reverse Domain Hijacking]

This is an attempt at domain hijacking at its finest. Kellogg's lawyers knew they might get 'lucky' if they happened to draw the right arbitrator. They didn't and lost this UDRP dispute.

There ought be a penalty for filing a frivolous UDRP dispute procedure complaint.