Ordinarily, we think of UDRP as providing a remedy for abusive registration of domain names, but the scope of the Policy has expanded over time to include abusive conduct. The Rugged.com cases discussed in the Note for April 30 and May 4, 2009 opened a window into current thinking on scope, much to the consternation of the dissenting member who was disheartened by the development. Arma Partners LLP v. Me, Victor Basta, D2009-0894 (WIPO August 26, 2009) is another illustration of this expansion of the Policy involving the retention of domain names by a withdrawn partner.
The Respondent did not respond to the complaint but stated his position in emails to the Complainant that he paid for the domain names and would not give them up even though he signed deeds transferring them to the partnership. The case is essentially for breach of contract involving the transfer of intellectual property including domain names. “[S]ince by those agreements both the disputed domain names became beneficially owned by the Complainant and since the Complainant also became entitled to the ARMA PARTNERS name and trademark, the Respondent cannot claim rights to or legitimate interests in either of the disputed domain names.” The Panel held that
Although the <armaparners.com> domain name may appear to have been originally registered in good faith by the Respondent, it is in this Panel’s view clear from the contractual commitments to which he became party by the LLP Deed and the contemporaneous Deed of Transfer that ownership of that domain name was transferred to the Complainant’s predecessor and that the Respondent as a Member of the Complainant agreed to devolution of that ownership to the Complainant:.... It is also clear from clause 18.9 of the LLP Deed ... that on resignation as a Member from the Complainant the Respondent was obligated to transfer all property to the Complainant. The disputed domain names were clearly business assets of the Complainant ... and, as such, were the Complainant’s property for the purpose of clause 18.9 of the LLP Deed.
Notwithstanding that the domain names were registered in good faith, the Panel reasoned that “what may appear to have been a good faith registration initially may be ‘coloured’ by the subsequent conduct of a respondent in for example breaching the specific terms of a contractual undertaking.” No cases are cited for this proposition but “[p]revious panels have recognized, and this Panel does also” that the Respondent needs more than good faith in appearance to prevail over the beneficial owner of the domain names.
