According to public domain name records, Jeremy Verhey is the founder of Company Homebuilder.com.au IP Pty Ltd and purchased the domain name Homebuilder.com.au in November of 2015.
According to his Linked In profile, Mr Verhey launched Homebuilder.com.au in January, 2020.
However, it doesn’t look like there was a website on the domain name until December 2022.
Meanwhile, the owner of Homebuilder.net.au appears to have purchased his domain name in March 2017, according to public domain records.
The Direct .au version of this domain name, “Homebuilder.au” appears to be in “Priority Hold” status, meaning both parties are entitled to the domain, and both parties have applied for priority status. Neither party will be able to own this Direct .au Homebuilder.au domain name until the other party relinquishes their priority status application.
There are right ways and wrong ways to try to acquire your dream Direct .au domain name, but in this case, it seems filing an auDRP case against his opponent to try to secure it has backfired for Mr Verhey.
According to the WIPO Decision, Mr Verhey filed an auDRP Complaint against the owner of Homebuilder.net.au in December 2022, the same month he launched his new website for Homebuilder.com.au
The Complainant stated he had registered Trademarks in September 2016 and April 2020.
Meanwhile, the Respondent has always clearly been a “home builder” and the domain name consists of two highly generic dictionary words.
Notable comments from the WIPO Decision include;
- The words “home” and “builder” are generic English descriptors meaning someone who builds homes, which is precisely what the Respondent and its predecessors have done for the past 30 years.
- The Respondent registered the disputed domain name because of its intrinsic value as a generic descriptive domain name and to use for its home building business. There are tens of thousands of organisations and businesses that use (or could use) Home Builder, demonstrating that it is not unique or distinctive and does not strongly point to the Complainant in respect of source or origin.
- The Complainant is not well known and is not a home builder.
- The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s enquiries because it registered the disputed domain name for use in its business as a home builder. The disputed domain name is not for sale.
- This is a classic case where the Complainant reached out to acquire a domain name legitimately owned by the Respondent and filed this Complaint as a “second bite” when that approach failed. There is a clear abuse of process as the Complainant admits that it is aware of the Respondent’s home builder business and knew that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name in accordance with the auDA Licensing Policy. The Complaint could never succeed. Furthermore, the Complainant is represented by a reputable law firm who would have advised it of the H, or at the very least, ought to have been aware that the auDRP is for simple cases of cybersquatting which is not the case here.
Matthew Kennedy was the sole panelist for this WIPO auDRP and he most notably stated;
- The record shows that the Complainant previously sought a commercial arrangement whereby the Respondent would either sell the disputed domain name or remove its priority status for the <homebuilder.au> domain name. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant resorted to the auDRP as a “Plan B” to harass the Respondent or use the proceeding as leverage in procuring the “.au” direct domain name.
- the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and that it constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
- the Complaint is denied.
Our Conclusion;
Jeremy Verhey and Homebuilder.com.au IP Pty Ltd engaged LegalVision ILP Pty Ltd to effectively “harass the Respondent or use the proceeding as leverage in procuring the “.au” direct domain name.”
Mr Verhey’s lawyers should have known the futility of this Complaint and one has to wonder if money was well spent in engaging them in this complaint in the first place.
The Panel found the Complaint was brought in “Bad Faith” which means Jeremy Verhey and Homebuilder.com.au IP Pty Ltd are now known from this moment forward as Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH).
A “Reverse Domain Name Hijacker” (RDNH), according to the CooperMills website, “is defined by the auDRP as meaning “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name”. This often takes place where the Complainant has been unable or unwilling to negotiate the purchase of a domain name from the registrant holding it. Some in the industry refer to RNDH as the process to ‘steal rather than pay’ for a domain name.”
Here at Assets Australia, we call these types of people, Domain Thieves.
Don’t be a domain thief.
If you want a good domain name, and the owner is willing to part with it, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
Congratulations to CooperMills.com.au on successfully defending this domain name, from this clearly vexatious complaint, for their client.
