From AI-Generated Complaints to Hallucinated Precedents and AI-Generated Evidence: Emerging Issues in Domain Name Disputes Article by Mr. Stefaan Meuwissen, Knowledge Lawyer I.P. at Hogan Lovells International LLP Artificial intelligence has become a routine feature of proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Both complainants and respondents now use AI to draft pleadings, identify legal arguments, generate or …
Chronological Barrier Defeats French Real Estate Firm Over 25-Year-Old Surname Domain – vol. 6.28
Chronological Barrier Defeats French Real Estate Firm Over 25-Year-Old Surname Domain The chronology in this case was dispositive, and the Panel treated it accordingly. The Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in July 2000, fourteen years before the Complainant obtained its first trademark registration in 2014. Under WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1, where a domain name is registered before a …
Descriptive AI-Branded Mark on Supplemental Register Dooms Complaint – vol. 6.27
Descriptive AI-Branded Mark on Supplemental Register Dooms Complaint This decision is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Panel reaffirmed that neither the renewal of a domain name registration nor its transfer from an individual registrant to a corporation under the same ownership constitutes a new registration for UDRP purposes. The Complainant’s attempt to characterize a 2026 Whois “updated” date as …
Panel: A “Textbook” Case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – vol. 6.26
Panel: A “Textbook” Case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking This decision is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Panel reaffirmed that neither the renewal of a domain name registration nor its transfer from an individual registrant to a corporation under the same ownership constitutes a new registration for UDRP purposes. The Complainant’s attempt to characterize a 2026 Whois “updated” date …
Ordinary Words, Same State, No Targeting – vol. 6.25
Ordinary Words, Same State, No Targeting The most significant aspect of the decision is the Panel’s refusal to infer targeting merely because the parties were both located in Arizona and both offered consulting-related services. While those facts might support further inquiry in a trademark infringement action, they did not relieve the Complainant of its burden to prove bad faith registration …
A Google Search Could Have Avoided This RDNH Finding – vol. 6.24
A Google Search Could Have Avoided This RDNH Finding The most noteworthy aspect of this decision is the Panel’s emphasis on a complainant’s obligation to conduct a reasonable pre-filing investigation. The Panel found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking not merely because the Complaint failed, but because readily available information would have revealed that the claim had little prospect of success. Continue …
When Losing the DropCatch Auction Becomes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking – vol. 6.23
When Losing the DropCatch Auction Becomes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking This decision is notable for the Panel’s treatment of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in the context of a self-represented complainant. While the underlying merits analysis was relatively straightforward, the Panel devoted significant attention to explaining why the Complainant’s lack of legal representation did not excuse the filing of a Complaint …
$200,000 Asking Price, But One Fatal Problem: The Timeline – vol. 6.22
$200,000 Asking Price, But One Fatal Problem: The Timeline This decision is a useful reminder that trademark priority and domain name chronology are not the same thing. The Complainant undoubtedly possessed trademark rights predating the Respondent’s acquisition of <rapidpay.com>, but the Panel focused on the question that ultimately matters in cases involving descriptive or brandable domain names: why did the …
UDRP Complaint with 200+ Annexes Draws Sharp Rebuke from Three-Member Panel – vol 6.21
UDRP Complaint with 200+ Annexes Draws Sharp Rebuke from Three-Member Panel Particularly notable was the Panel’s criticism of the sheer volume of evidentiary submissions. The reference to more than 200 annexes was not merely procedural commentary or judicial irritation with an oversized filing. Rather, it reflected a broader institutional concern that the proceeding had evolved into an over-litigated commercial dispute …
Business Divorce Dressed Up as Cybersquatting Ends in RDNH Finding – vol. 6.20
Business Divorce Dressed Up as Cybersquatting Ends in RDNH Finding The Panel denied the Complaint concerning <chainbridgeestates.com> and issued a strong finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”), emphasizing that the UDRP is designed to address clear cases of cybersquatting – not internal business disputes over control of a domain name associated with a jointly developed project. The Panel was unpersuaded …