WIPO panelist Steven A. Maier was the panelist who decided the UDRP complain in
Instakart Services Private Limited v. Ozguc Bayraktar, RS DANISMANLIK
Case No. D2024-4345
Key Reasons why the ekart.com UDRP decision was correctly decided:
1. Chronological Impossibility:
– Domain registered: December 29, 1999
– Complainant’s operations began: 2009
– Trademark registrations: November 7, 2012
– Impossible for Respondent to target non-existent rights
2. Burden of Proof Failure:
– Failed to demonstrate bad faith registration
– Clear timeline discrepancy
– No evidence of targeting future rights
3. Legal Principles Correctly Applied:
– Cannot retroactively claim bad faith
– Basic temporal requirement not met
– No applicable exceptions present
WIPO Principles Cited in the ekart.com UDRP decision
1. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.8:
– Key principle: Cannot target non-existent trademark
– Exception: Only for “nascent” rights with prior knowledge
– Application: No evidence of nascent rights in 1999
2. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 4.16:
– Regarding Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)
– Mere complaint failure insufficient for RDNH
– Requires additional bad faith elements
ekart.com UDRP decision
Decision Elements Properly Applied:
1. Three-Part Test Analysis:
– Only addressed first element (confusing similarity)
– Correctly skipped second element as unnecessary
– Third element (bad faith) dispositive of case
2. RDNH Finding Justified:
– Professional representation should know better
– Clear chronological impossibility
– Misrepresentation in complaint certification
Correct Aspects of the Decision:
1. Procedural Correctness:
– Proper consideration of timeline
– Clear reasoning provided
– Appropriate sanctions applied
2. Legal Analysis:
– Focused on fundamental temporal issue
– Applied established UDRP principles
– Correct handling of RDNH
3. Evidence Assessment:
– Clear chronological documentation
– Proper weight given to registration dates
– Appropriate consideration of Respondent’s rights
4. Policy Implementation:
– Protected legitimate domain registrations
– Prevented abuse of UDRP process
– Maintained system integrity
The decision demonstrates proper application of UDRP principles and serves as a reminder that:
– Registration dates are crucial
– Prior rights must exist for bad faith claims
– Professional representatives have heightened responsibility
– RDNH findings appropriate for clearly impossible claims
This case serves as an important precedent for:
– Temporal requirements in UDRP cases
– Professional conduct standards
– RDNH determinations
– Protection of legitimate registrations