Self-represented Complainant couldn’t keep his story straight.

A Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC) panelist has found that Jeremy Labreche / Addison Electronique Entreprise Inc. attempted to reverse hijack the domain name addison-electronique.com.

The parties have been arguing for quite some time, and the respondent sued the complainant immediately before the complainant filed the UDRP.

Panelist Nathalie Dreyfus could have dismissed the case outright based on the pending lawsuit, but decided to render a decision (pdf), in part because of the respondent’s request for reverse domain name hijacking.

It’s a needlessly complex dispute involving two relatives. The complainant represented himself, and his case is full of contradictions.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, Dreyfus noted some of the contradictions in the case:

First, the Complainant’s own accounts of his family history – the Complaint’s description of his grandfather’s ownership of the original Addison stores until 2002 and his father’s founding of Maddison Électronique in 1994, and his June 6, 2026 further submission’s description of himself as the Respondent’s “direct cousin” with family ties to the ADDISON name dating to the late 1930s – indicate personal, first-hand, and longstanding knowledge of the Respondent’s and its predecessors’ use of that name. Second, the creation date of the Domain Name (May 4, 2001) was a matter of public record, readily verifiable through a WhoIs search, before the Complaint was filed. Third, the Complainant’s own claimed trademark rights are, at best, a pending trademark application filed on October 6, 2025 and a minority, non-controlling shareholding in a corporation that holds a 2011 trademark registration – neither of which could plausibly support a claim that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith in 2001.

Fourth, the Complaint represents to the Panel that the Complainant’s domain name addisonelectronique.com “has been active for many years,” invoking it, together with a broader portfolio of similarly-formed domain names, as evidence of a substantial and longstanding legitimate interest in the Addison brand. As noted in Section 2 above, this representation does not withstand verification: the domain name in question was registered only on November 29, 2024, shortly before the parties’ dispute escalated, and no evidence was provided for the registration dates of the remaining domain names in the cited portfolio. A complainant’s mischaracterization of the age and continuity of its own online presence, in support of its claimed rights, is a further factor weighing in favour of a finding of RDNH.

Fifth, the Complainant’s own filings contain further internal contradictions bearing directly on the elements he was required to prove. He describes NEQ 2281364051 in the Complaint as a federally incorporated company, and in his June 6, 2026 further submission as an unincorporated Entreprise Individuelle. He also describes his business, in the Complaint, as operating in “the exact same sector” as the Respondent’s, while in that same further submission describing it as operating in “a fundamentally different sector.” A complainant’s inability to consistently describe the very corporate vehicle through which he claims rights, or the business said to compete with the Respondent’s, further undermines the credibility of the Complaint as a good-faith invocation of the Policy.

Thanks to the ICA UDRP Digest for bringing this case to my attention.