Category Archive

Panel Rejects “Topical Use” Requirement for Descriptive Domain Investors; RDNH Found This decision squarely rejects a recurring and incorrect theory advanced in UDRP complaints: that a domain investor must use a domain name in connection with goods or services corresponding to the ordinary meaning of the words in the domain, either as to that particular name or across its portfolio. …

Panel Rebukes “Doomed” Complaint Where Domain Predates Complainant by 12 Years The disputed domain name was registered in 2010 — fully twelve years before the Complainant came into existence and fourteen years before its claimed first use. The Complainant went further and expressly disclaimed any allegation that the Respondent registered the domain name with knowledge of, or intent to target, …

Parties Are Free to Represent Themselves But Must Bear the Consequences iguide .com is a well-reasoned decision from Panelist Ivett Paulovics that methodically applies foundational UDRP principles – particularly with respect to passive holding, temporal priority, and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”). The analysis is careful, structured, and entirely consistent with established jurisprudence. Continue reading commentary here.  WIPO and ICA Conclude Comprehensive Review …

Panel Finds RDNH Against French Bank for Second Time This was the second time that this Complainant was found to have engaged in RDNH with respect to a four-letter acronym domain name. The first time was covered in our Digest here. The first case involved (Respondent represented by Ankur Raheja, our Editor-in-Chief), whereas the present case involved (represented by author, …

Panel: Complainant Needed Evidence of Targeting Considering Dictionary Meaning of “Etihad” Though perhaps initially a surprising outcome, the Panel provided a compelling explanation of its determination that there was no basis for finding targeting of the Complainant’s trademark given the dictionary meaning of the transliterated word, Etihad, and given its common use amongst third parties in various industries. Despite the …

Panel: Filing an Unsatisfactory Complaint “Has Consequences” – No Refiling Absent Highly Limited Circumstances The present case follows an earlier case brought in connection with the very same domain name. Essentially the Complainant alleged that SMASHMUSIC was a typographical error of the Complainant’s trademark, SAM ASH MUSIC. The earlier decision decided on December 10, 2025 was justifiably critical of the …

Panel: Investing in Potentially Brandable Domain Names to Resell at Higher Price Can Constitute Legitimate Interest There is no requirement that a Complainant’s trademark be particularly well-known but this factor nevertheless can play an important role, as it did here. The Panel found that the Complainant “failed to substantiate its claim of being well-known” but this did not matter per …

KPOP DEMON HUNTERS Acquired Common Law Rights Within 3 Days of Use This is a great example of how the UDRP treats nascent trademark rights. Here, it was clearly not a coincidence that a guy registered KPOP DEMON HUNTERS three days after the Complainant commenced use of the mark. Acquiring common law rights, in the traditional trademark law sense, within …

Respondent Offered to Transfer Domains for $50.20 This case highlights how the UDRP is not intended to be a trademark court. Its mandate is strictly limited to resolving cases where a domain name was registered in bad faith, i.e. targeting of a trademark owner’s mark and goodwill. Cases which involve a determination of who has “better” rights or whether trademark …

Panel: “Sloppy, Incomplete” Complaint “Overstates” Complainant’s Case We are clearly at the point where Panels will not tolerate sloppy and incomplete pleadings. As noted by the Panel, “the Factual Background section of the Complaint comprises two paragraphs” [and] the Bad Faith section does not address the obvious difficulty that the disputed Domain Name was registered decades before the Complainant or …