By Steve Levy
In UDRP cases there are a few “frequent flyers” – habitual cybersquatters who keep coming back again and again. Successful in monetizing their domain names through pay-per-click links, for-sale offers, or by more nefarious means, they’ve made a living out of impersonating major brands and confusing internet users. Atop of this mountain sits a domain owner known as Carolina Rodriguez / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (CR/FCE) who lists a Panama address and, as of this writing, has been on the losing end of over 820 UDRP decisions. Recent domain names ordered to be transferred include such gems as mymattel.com, amyschummer.com, americanairlinnes.com, rolexparismaster.com, and starbuckspartnerhour.com. Most of the domain names resolve to classic pay-per-click sites and this individual or entity has never once responded to a UDRP case brought against them.
As experienced UDRP practitioners will recognize, repeated cybersquatting activity can be cited in a complaint as a pattern of conduct to prove bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. And it doesn’t take much. The WIPO Overview 3.0, at par. 3.1.2, states that “UDRP panels have held that establishing a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registration.” I’ve filed 14 complaints against CR/FCE and have used this section of the Policy to good effect every time. As with any good UDRP practice, submitting the proper evidence is key and screenshots of search results from a UDRP research site such as UDRP.tools can support the citation of a few cases in the written complaint.
However, at typical rates for filing a UDRP complaint, this single registrant can be estimated to have cost brand owners over $3.5 million in legal and filing fees over the years. To my knowledge, no one has ever sought to uncover exactly who this person or entity is or attempt taking them to court. While it would be a more expensive proposition, court action could yield monetary damages or an injunction against this person or entity owning domain names which would collectively save more millions of dollars in future UDRP costs for affected companies. Perhaps a number of the more frequently targeted brand owners could jointly take action with each only paying the cost of 2 or 3 UDRP cases.
This sort of joint investigation and litigation could finally put a stop to the world’s most prolific cybersquatter and send a message to others who consider the loss of their inexpensive domain names through the UDRP to simply be the cost of doing an otherwise profitable business. Otherwise, both CR/FCE and others will keep getting away with it and brand owners will keep paying their lawyers.
Please let us know if you would be interested in becoming part of a joint plaintiff group to take down this abusive and costly domain name owner once and for all.