In what be the first case, an Examiner found a “Complaint filed under the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) proceeding was brought as abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods”.

The URS involved the generic domain name Grey.email and the Complainant Grey Global Group LLC of New York, New York, which was represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. of New York, New York.

The panel found that the Complainant, “failed to establish the first element necessary to succeed on a UDRP claim: (actually a URS claim in this case) “that it owns trademark rights and that the Domain Name is identical to that trademark.”

“The American trademark GREY No 2469398 on which the complaint is based is in the name of the American company Grey Global Group Inc (Delaware Corporation), whereas the complaint is filed in the name of the American company Grey Global Group LLC.”

“There is no explanation on this difference.”

Therefore the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not present adequate evidence to substantiate its trademark rights in the domain name and rejects the Complaint”

The Examiner Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, then went on to say she further finds the “Complaint was brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods as explained above.”

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking rulings are not available in URS decision since even if the complainant won the URS they would not get the domain name, just to have it suspended for the remaining registration period.  However it is when a Complaint under a UDRP is found to have been  brought as an abuse of the administrative proceeding which gives rise to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding.