Category Archive

What Actually Constitutes a Prima Facie Case? The Panel made the clear and unequivocal statement that, “If a domain name is legitimately held the registrant can ask whatever price it likes for it”. This is correct and is consistent with UDRP Perspectives at 3.5 (“Setting a Price and Offering for Sale”; “If a Respondent has a legitimate interest in a …

Panel: ‘Complainant Should Pay Respondent’s Costs’ Notably, the Panel stated that “if there were a provision in the Policy authorizing the award of costs to a prevailing Respondent, the Panel would be inclined to so order in this case, but there is no such provision in the Policy.” The Panel however, went on to clarify that it “does not intend …

Respondent Cannot Rely Upon Previous Registrant’s Rights Sometimes a Respondent will make an argument that is meritless but nevertheless requires attention by the Panelist. Such was the case here, where the Respondent alleged that the Complaint was a “refiled case” despite the fact that the prior case was brought against the previous registrant. As the Panel noted however, “although the …

Complainant Demanded Respondent Sell Domain Name or Would Bring UDRP Most UDRP cases are ”run of the mill” cases that consist mainly of very similar fact patterns which disclose a clear case of cybersquatting. A significant minority however, are laden with unique circumstances, challenging legal questions, or conflicting evidence. Some such complicated or unique cases may be resolvable despite the …

Panel: “Height of Irony” for Complainant to Accuse Respondent of Typosquatting When Respondent Owned Properly Spelled Domain, Prescriptive[.com]  Congratulations to the Panel for its solid and clear-eyed rejection of a baseless claim. Also, congratulations to the Respondent’s counsel (an ICA Member) for his successful defense. It is a shame however, that this case even needed to be defended. As the …

COURT UPDATE: Lawsuit Filed by Complainant After UDRP on FyreFestival.com Dismissed. In our September 24, 2025 UDRP Digest we reported on this UDRP decision (See: “Did the Panel Unjustly Deprive the Complainant of a Transfer?”. ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch, commented that “in dismissing what appears to be a strong and clear case, the Panel has in my view, unfortunately …

Panel: No ‘Per se Legal Obligation’ Under the Policy to Conduct a Trademark Search This case is notable for how the Panel took an appropriately nuanced view of the utility of conducting a trademark search. The Panel noted that “there is not a per se legal obligation under the Policy to conduct a search of trademark office databases as a …

Registration of “Stamps .com” Mark Does Not Confer an Exclusive Right to the Stand-Alone Term “Stamps” This case will be of special interest for those who have wondered how the UDRP will consider the U.S. Supreme Court’s Booking.com decision. The ICA filed an amicus brief in the Booking.com  case through its very able counsel, David Weslow of Wiley and afterwards …

Did the Panel Unjustly Deprive the Complainant of a Transfer? The Panel’s decision is confounding to me. Despite a lengthy and complex decision, the facts to me appear rather simple. The Complainant had a very well-known common law trademark for a music festival located in the Bahamas which preexisted the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent used the …

Contrived Complaint or Unsuccessful Complaint? When it comes to RDNH, I have consistently said that while Panelists are required to consider it when appropriate, RDNH is ultimately a matter of Panelist discretion having regard to the circumstances. Here, it appears that the Complainant apparently fumbled the case by failing to provide evidence of common law trademark rights, and as the …