A French company, Cassy SAS, recently attempted reverse domain name hijacking, which ultimately failed. The company, specializing in women’s shoes, purses, and accessories, filed a dispute with the World Intellectual Property Organization over the domain name cassy.com. However, it was revealed that the domain had been registered before Cassy SAS even existed, making their case untenable.

Despite being aware of this crucial timeline discrepancy, Cassy SAS proceeded with the case, even submitting a supplemental filing acknowledging that the current domain owner had registered the domain prior to their trademark acquisition. The company argued that the domain’s renewal in 2024 coincided with their own growth, implying bad faith on the part of the domain owner. However, it was Cassy SAS that initiated discussions about purchasing the domain and failed to disclose their prior attempts to acquire it.

The panelist, Jeremy Speres, found Cassy SAS guilty of reverse domain name hijacking due to their persistence in pursuing the case despite knowing the domain’s history and the lack of evidence supporting their claims. The panelist highlighted the generic nature of the term “cassy” and the absence of proof of Cassy SAS’s reputation in the mark, indicating a lack of targeting by the domain owner.

Shannon Avocats represented Cassy SAS in this case, while Glenn Gallagher, Esq., represented the domain name owner. The attempt at reverse domain name hijacking by Cassy SAS was deemed as a bad faith effort to acquire the domain name through alternative means after failed negotiations. This case serves as a cautionary tale about the repercussions of pursuing unjustifiable claims in domain disputes.

The incident involving Cassy SAS underscores the importance of conducting thorough research before engaging in legal actions related to domain names. It also sheds light on the complexities and ethical considerations involved in domain disputes, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to established policies. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, instances of reverse domain name hijacking highlight the significance of fair play and integrity in domain name ownership and disputes.