Category Archive

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 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 …

Employee’s Unauthorized Domain Transfer is a “New Registration” This decision is notable for its treatment of an unauthorized intra-company domain transfer as a “new registration” capable of satisfying the conjunctive bad faith registration and use requirement under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel confronted a factual scenario that falls outside the classic cybersquatting paradigm: a domain name originally registered in good …

When Not Paying Your UDRP Fees Becomes Evidence of Bad Faith What caught my attention most in this case was the Panel’s treatment of the Complainant’s failure to pay its share of the three-member Panel fees. After the Respondent elected a three-member Panel, the Complainant did not pay the required top-up. The Panel did not treat this as a neutral …

Panel’s Insistence on Evidence of Targeting: Price and Passive Holding Are No Substitute for Bad Faith  The decision reflects a measured and structured application of settled UDRP principles to a fact pattern that often invites overreach. The Panelist, Mr. Nick J. Gardner, approaches the case with a disciplined focus on targeting, resisting the temptation to conflate high resale value or …

“Stepping Into the Shoes”: Assessing Continuity After Portfolio Transfers The decision engages an issue that has arisen in prior UDRP cases, namely whether, and in what circumstances, a portfolio acquisition preserves the original registration date for purposes of assessing bad faith. The Panel’s treatment of this question is careful and grounded in the evidentiary record, but it also highlights the …

Panel: “Textbook Case of Trademark Overreach” This looks like a sound and notably well-calibrated decision. The Panel correctly focused on what mattered most: the Respondent was not passively holding the Domain Name, nor using it as a pretext, but operating an actual project that fit the ordinary meaning of the words “open” and “space.” That is the heart of the …

Implausible Emails and a Two-Letter Domain: Panel Firmly Rejects Fabricated Evidence and Finds RDNH This decision is a careful and commendable example of a panel rigorously testing the evidentiary record before drawing inferences of bad faith. Faced with a valuable two-letter Domain Name acquired for nearly USD $800,000, the Panel appropriately anchored its analysis in first principles: targeting must be …

Chronology and Credible Use Defeat Overreaching Complaint; Panel Finds RDNH This is a well-reasoned decision that properly foregrounds the dispositive issue of timing. The Panel treats chronology as a threshold constraint, not a peripheral factor. Where a Domain Name predates any cognizable trademark rights, and where common law rights are not established, the case should ordinarily fail absent compelling evidence …

Nascent Rights and Plausible Independent Choice Defeat Complaint This decision turns on timing and plausibility. The Respondent acquired <simplimo .com> in November 2025 for over USD 7,000 from a recognized reseller. At that point, the Complainant’s alleged rights were nascent – its corporate registration, domain name, and marketing rollout all clustered around late 2025. On this record, there was no …