That would mean the complaintant is flat out telling a lie he spoke with Pacaud after that date in regards to the name ?
Congratulations, JP, that's
precisely what that means. The Complainant lied about how long they were in business. The Complainant lied about the site being a parking site. And, concerning that telephone call, you seem to have missed this part:
Furthermore, Respondent contends that it could not have been possible for Mr. Choplin to have spoken to Mr. Pecaud in France on March 20, 2007 since Mr. Pecaud was travelling at that time and had arrived in JFK airport in New York on March 19, 2007 as was demonstrated by copies of extracts from Mr. Pecaudâs passport which were annexed to the Response.
So, there is a choice there. Either US Customs and Immigration had the wrong date on their visa stamp that day, or he flew in to JFK, turned around, and flew back in order to be in France on the 20th.
But, here's what you seem to be missing. They were claiming to have had a telephone conversation with someone in
March 2007 - a couple of months after the domain name was sold, and long before the domain name was acquired from that buyer by the actual respondent in the UDRP case. Yes, they flat-out lied twice in one sentence because (a) it doesn't appear likely they spoke to someone in France who wasn't in France and (b)
that person was not the domain registrant against whom they filed the UDRP in the first place.
As of July 2nd 2008, whois indicates Stephane Pacaud as the owner.
Are you stating Stephane Pacaud sold this name in July/08 to Ant.com Limited ?
Ant.com Ltd. was incorporated in April 2008, and their product was launched July 17, 2008, which can be independently verified in the version information for the software at Mozilla.org. Yes, Ant.com Ltd. obtained the domain name in July 2008. Obviously, things were proceeding along that course, since they named the company Ant.com Ltd. a few months prior to then. This is all laid out in the decision and, of course, was supported by documentary evidence in the response.
The UDRP was filed this year - 2009 - against Ant.com Ltd.. It doesn't matter who owned the domain name in early 2008. In fact, UDRP panels are used to sticking that point to domain name registrants who acquire old domain names for which trademarks have sprung up in the meantime. Even if a domain registrant is a sole proprietor and transfers the domain name to his personal name, a UDRP panel will call that a "new registration".
In point of fact, it would not have mattered if they had spoken to a previous owner who said, "Oh, heck yeah, I cybersquatted the crap out of this thing and you are going to pay me big bucks for it" - since the previous owner's behavior is not relevant to what
this domain name registrant has been doing with the domain name.
Now, JP, notice what else they did....
They claimed that Ant.com Ltd. was "competing" with them by providing internet search. In point of fact, the Complainant put up an internet search bar - using the Respondent's tag line -
after the Respondent launched its search site. Then, in the UDRP, they actually tried to claim the Respondent copied them.
You want to see more
pure sleaze?
Do a Google search for "ant.com" and see what comes up in the paid ads. Yep, that's right - they are violating Google's ad terms by putting a URL in their ad text which they don't own.
I get the impression you are suffering from the sort of "initial bias" that is the starting point of many panelists. There is this notion that complainants walk into these things pure as the driven snow, and that the respondent must be up to no good. In this case, the entire complaint was pretty much a work of fiction. In the absence of a response, a panel would have believed it. But you seem surprised that the complainant "flat-out lied". Yes, complainants do that, and this one was a doozy.
having to defend the name within 6 months of owning it and assuming he paid in excess of 2006's $240k, Id be pissed.
And, JP, that's putting it mildly. What the complainant tried to pull here was outrageous, and there was plenty of outrage.
You'll notice that unlike a lot of other NAF UDRP's, there was no round of supplemental filings. The complainant didn't have a word to say in rebuttal. Not a word.
Ah.. missed one...
That would also mean it is bad timing that after discussions ( that really didnt happen ) the name is sold to a HK company before the wipo is filed ?
Look at the timeline, JP.
The domain name sale to the first buyer was in late 2006. The alleged telephone call was in March 2007. The completion of transfer to Ant.com Ltd. was in July 2008. It's not as if anyone got off of the telephone and said, "Oh, I have to dump this name in a hurry."
So, we come to early 2009 when the complaint is filed, and some guy swears he remembers the exact words of a telephone call he claims he made in March 2007.
Suuuuure he does.
