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 proven, not presumed. Continue reading commentary here.
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 6.14) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):
‣ Implausible Emails and a Two-Letter Domain: Panel Firmly Rejects Fabricated Evidence and Finds RDNH (mf .com *with commentary)
‣ Disclaimed Words, Sparse Evidence, and a 12-Year Delay: Panel Declines to Stretch UDRP Beyond Its Limits (brothersgutters .com *with commentary)
‣ Non-profit Files UDRP Over Geographic Domain Registered Fourteen Years Before Its Existence (udistrict .com *with commentary)
‣ Refiling Succeeds Where New Registrant and Clear Targeting Align (sunbet .com *with commentary)
‣ Same Name, Earlier Registration: Personal Use Defeats Late-Formed Rights (ivancornejo .com *with commentary)
‣ Alleged Domain Theft and Ransom Demands Fall Outside UDRP’s Limited Scope (bitcoinusamining.com and 16 others *with commentary)
Implausible Emails and a Two-Letter Domain: Panel Firmly Rejects Fabricated Evidence and Finds RDNH
MUSCO FOODS CORPORATION v. Luke Chen, Forum Case No. FA2602002206848
<mf .com>
Panelist: Mr. Bart Van Besien (Chair), Mr. Adam Taylor, and Mr. Jonathan Agmon
Brief Facts: The Complainant is a New York-based importer, manufacturer, and distributor of Mediterranean food products, including cheese. It holds a USPTO registration for the combined word-figurative mark MF (registered on April 3, 1990). The Complainant asserts that it has used the “MF” mark continuously for decades in connection with its business of importing, manufacturing, and distributing Mediterranean food products, and that the mark also serves as an abbreviation of its corporate name and a key identifier of its commercial activities, both offline and online. The disputed Domain Name, originally created on September 21, 1994, was acquired by the Singapore-based Respondent on March 11, 2024, for approximately USD 797,264, which the Respondent claims reflects the inherent value of two-letter “.com” domain names as scarce and highly sought-after digital assets.
The Complainant alleges that in January-February 2026 it contacted the Respondent to purchase the Domain Name and received email responses in which the Respondent admitted registering the Domain Name in 1994 to hold the Complainant “hostage,” demanded USD 50,000,000, and threatened to redirect the Domain Name to a competitor, constituting clear evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. The Respondent contends that the Complaint is flawed and should be denied, raising several issues that, in its view, undermine the credibility of the Complainant’s case. In particular, the Respondent alleges that the Complainant has submitted fabricated evidence, specifically the email correspondence relied upon to establish bad faith. The Respondent denies ever receiving or sending such emails and argues that the alleged communications are technically impossible because the disputed Domain Name did not have active MX (mail exchange) records during the relevant period.
Held: The Panel notes that the Complainant’s Trademark is a stylized (design) mark, consisting of the textual elements “M” and “F” (or “MF”) combined with graphical elements. The Complainant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the mark enjoys a particular reputation. Moreover, the Complainant’s trademark is registered only in the United States, while the Respondent does not appear to operate there, and the mark is limited to cheese, a sector in which there is no evidence of the Respondent’s involvement. In light of these circumstances, the Panel finds no persuasive factual basis to conclude that the Respondent targeted the Complainant or even had knowledge of the Complainant or the Complainant’s Trademark, whether at the time of registration or thereafter. Moreover, the Respondent’s 2024 purchase at nearly USD 800,000 was consistent with legitimate investment in a scarce two-letter domain; and passive holding during the two years post-acquisition did not negate legitimate interests in the circumstances.
The Panel further declines to give evidentiary weight to the alleged email correspondence, finding it unreliable. Most critically, a statement in the purported February 2 email that the Respondent had registered the Domain Name on September 21, 1994 was irreconcilable with the March 2024 acquisition reflected in the purchase agreement and Whois records. Absent that evidence, the Panel found no basis to conclude that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant or its mark. In sum, the Panel finds that the alleged email correspondence is not reliable and declines to give it evidentiary weight. Absent this evidence, the Complainant has not established a case of bad faith. The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complainant has failed to provide sufficiently persuasive arguments or evidence demonstrating that any of the circumstances set out in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, or any other indicia of bad faith registration and use, are present in this case.
RDNH: The Panel finds that the Complainant submitted misleading or unsupported evidence (including the alleged email correspondence of January 21 to February 5, 2026); and also pursued a Complaint concerning a Domain Name consisting of a generic two-letter combination, without credible evidence supporting both the second and third elements of the Policy. The Panel emphasizes that the UDRP is intended to resolve legitimate disputes. That purpose would not be served by declining to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking where the circumstances, as here, warrant such a finding.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Self-represented
Respondent’s Counsel: Lei Zhang, Chofn Intellectual Property, China
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
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 proven, not presumed.
At the outset, the Panel correctly recognized the inherent weakness of the Complainant’s position. A stylized “MF” mark, limited to cheese products and without demonstrated reputation, is a slender reed upon which to base a claim to a highly valuable two-letter .com domain. As is well understood, such domains are scarce assets with broad potential meaning, and absent compelling evidence of targeting, investment alone is not only legitimate but expected.
The Panel’s treatment of the alleged email correspondence is particularly noteworthy. Rather than accepting the Complainant’s assertions at face value, the Panel interrogated the internal inconsistencies in the record. The purported admission that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in 1994 was irreconcilable with the undisputed evidence of a 2024 acquisition. This contradiction, coupled with the Respondent’s technical argument regarding the absence of MX records, led the Panel to reject the emails outright as unreliable. That evidentiary discipline is laudable and consistent with the requirement that bad faith be established on credible, coherent evidence rather than conjecture or fabrication.
Once the emails were set aside, the case effectively collapsed. There was no evidence of targeting, no plausible basis for imputing knowledge of the Complainant, and no conduct falling within Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. The Panel’s conclusion that passive holding did not negate legitimate interests in the context of a high-value, inherently attractive two-letter domain is entirely consistent with established UDRP jurisprudence.
The RDNH finding is equally well-founded. The Panel did not merely rely on the weakness of the Complainant’s case, but pointed to the affirmative submission of misleading or unsupported evidence. Bringing a complaint over a two-letter domain without credible evidence of targeting is already problematic; doing so while relying on suspect or fabricated communications crosses the line into abuse of the Policy.
One further observation arises from the Panel’s findings that deserves attention. If, as the Panel concluded, the key evidence of bad faith was unreliable or fabricated, this raises a deeper structural concern: how confident can a panel be that the complainant itself is what it purports to be? The UDRP assumes, but does not rigorously verify, the identity and authority of complainants. In a case where fabricated evidence is submitted, one might reasonably ask whether additional safeguards should exist to ensure that proceedings are brought by genuine rights holders and supported by authentic evidence. The absence of formal mechanisms to test this at the outset could, in edge cases, expose the process to misuse beyond mere overreach.
Disclaimed Words, Sparse Evidence, and a 12-Year Delay: Panel Declines to Stretch UDRP Beyond Its Limits
<brothersgutters .com>
Panelist: Mr. Steven M. Levy
Brief Facts: The Complainant, incorporated in April 2005, is a Pennsylvania gutter repair and replacement company. It asserts rights in the mark GUTTER BROTHERS, registered on December 29, 2020 before USPTO and also claims common law rights dating to its incorporation. The disputed Domain Name was registered on April 17, 2008, over twelve years before Complainant’s USPTO registration was issued. The Respondent operates a national gutter contracting franchise under the brand THE BROTHERS THAT JUST DO GUTTERS, has used the Domain Name for bona fide commercial services since 2008, and holds its own incontestable USPTO registration (April 17, 2012) as well as a more recent registration (January 28, 2025) for that mark.
The Complaint alleges that the Respondent’s use of the disputed Domain Name is a tactical choice to capture traffic belonging to the senior user. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith where it has admitted that it had knowledge of the Complainant’s mark from a 2015 buyout offer made by the Complainant and based on its use of the domain name to create initial interest confusion and divert internet traffic from and disrupt Complainant’s business. The Respondent denies bad faith and further contends that the Complainant’s delay of eleven years before filing this proceeding undermines any assertion that the disputed Domain Name is causing it cognizable harm.
Rather, the Respondent suspects that the timing of the Complaint is due to the 2023 acquisition of Respondent’s business by a private equity firm and its current plans to nationally franchise the business. The Complainant under its additional submissions further alleges that the Response is a “big law” tactic designed to overwhelm the Board with sheer volume and bury the core facts under a mountain of secondary documentation. The Complainant states that in looking beyond this war of attrition, the Respondent’s increased use of “Brothers Gutters” in its local market is causing consumer confusion and is actively harming its business and stalling its franchise development at a critical juncture.
Held: The Panel finds that the Complainant’s USPTO registration was insufficient under Policy ¶4(a)(i) because it consisted of a composite graphic logo mark from which the words GUTTER BROTHERS had been expressly disclaimed, meaning the USPTO itself determined those words were not independently registrable. A design registration with disclaimed textual elements requires additional evidence of secondary meaning in those words before trademark rights can be established, see WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶¶ 1.2.3 and 1.10. The Panel reviewed the Complainant’s common law evidence, a corporate filing, a largely illegible 2007 newspaper clipping, a military flag certificate, an undated truck photo, and a Facebook page with 1,000 followers, and found it too sparse to demonstrate that GUTTER BROTHERS had acquired sufficient distinctiveness to sustain common law trademark rights.
One of Complainant’s exhibits shows a vehicle imprinted with Respondent’s logo on its door and it further makes mention of communications between the parties, in 2015, in which a buyout offer of the Respondent was made by the Complainant. The Panel views this as some evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by its full name “The Brothers That Just Do Gutters” or a shorthand version thereof as embodied in the disputed Domain Name. As such, the Respondent’s assertion that it “has made bona fide commercial use of the domain since 2008, and operates a legitimate national business called THE BROTHERS THAT JUST DO GUTTERS through the domain <brothersgutters .com>” is well-founded and satisfies Policy ¶4(c)(i) and possibly ¶4(c)(ii).
The Panel further notes that the parties have been engaged in various disputes at the USPTO and additionally, the presented evidence suggests that this is, in fact, a broader trademark dispute involving questions of infringement and the geographic scope of rights. Thus, there is insufficient evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in 2008 in a bad faith effort to target the Complainant or its mark. Finally, there is the question of the Complainant’s delay in bringing the present action. While the concept of laches does not apply in UDRP proceedings, WIPO Overview 3.1, at par. 4.17, the Complainant’s long delay in pursuing a 2008 domain name calls into question its claim that the domain name “is actively harming [its] business” and suggests that the matter is not so urgent that it cannot be resolved by a court of law.
RDNH: While the facts of this case leads the Panel to suspect that the Complainant is taking a rather aggressive position, the question remains of whether it owns trademark rights in the phrase GUTTER BROTHERS and, if so, to what extent these may be successfully enforced against the Respondent’s use of a brand name, and domain name, that contains these words in relation to gutter repair and installation services performed by individuals who are, in fact, brothers. This involves broader issues of trademark law which, although outside the scope of the Policy, provides the Complainant with just a sliver of legitimacy and leaves the Panel unable to find that this case has been pursued in bad faith or primarily to harass the Respondent. On this basis, the Panel finds that the scale tips against a finding of RDNH.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Brian DeHart, Gutter Brothers Inc., USA
Respondent’s Counsel: Carrie L. Kiedrowski, Jones Day, USA
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This is a careful and disciplined decision by Panelist Steven M. Levy, who appropriately resists extending the UDRP into what is fundamentally a broader trademark dispute.
The Panel’s analysis rightly begins with the threshold issue of rights. The Complainant’s reliance on a design mark in which “GUTTER BROTHERS” was expressly disclaimed proved insufficient. As the Panel recognized, such a registration does not, without more, establish exclusive rights in the disclaimed wording. The Complainant’s attempt to fill this gap with common law evidence also failed, as the sparse and largely undated materials did not demonstrate acquired distinctiveness.
Even if rights had been established, the Respondent’s position under Policy ¶4(c) was strong. The Respondent has operated a bona fide business under THE BROTHERS THAT JUST DO GUTTERS since 2008, supported by its own trademark registrations. The Panel sensibly accepted that the disputed Domain Name reflects a shorthand version of that brand, reinforcing the legitimacy of the Respondent’s use.
On bad faith, the timing is dispositive. The Domain Name was registered in 2008, well before the Complainant’s registration and before any credible showing of distinctiveness. Alleged knowledge arising from a 2015 buyout discussion cannot retroactively establish bad faith. The Panel also treated the Complainant’s eleven-year delay as probative, noting that such delay undermines claims of urgency even if laches does not formally apply.
Finally, the Panel properly recognized that this dispute raises broader trademark issues better suited for courts. The refusal to find RDNH is also understandable, given the limited but not entirely implausible overlap between the parties’ claims.
Non-profit Files UDRP Over Geographic Domain Registered Fourteen Years Before Its Existence
<udistrict .com>
Panelist: Mr. W. Scott Blackmer (Presiding), Mr. Douglas M. Isenberg, and Ms. Lynda M. Braun
Brief Facts: The Complainant, formed on January 27, 2014, is a Seattle-based nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation serving as a volunteer advocacy organization for residents, merchants, and visitors of Seattle’s University District neighborhood. It holds USPTO registration for the word mark U DISTRICT (August 26, 2025), with claimed first use in commerce as of April 17, 2013. The Respondent, a professional domain investor, purchased the Domain Name on July 9, 2008 at a domain auction, and it resolves to a landing page offering the Domain Name for sale. The Complainant contacted the Respondent in January 2026 and offered to purchase the disputed Domain Name for USD 1,000. The Respondent countered with an asking price of USD 23,000. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent acted in bad faith by proposing a resale price above out-of-pocket costs.
The Complainant further alleges that there is a “high risk” of misdirecting Internet users seeking the Complainant and further that the “passive holding may constitute bad faith where, as here, the domain is identical to a complainant’s mark, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and the Respondent’s conduct indicates an abusive registration”. The Respondent contends that it has a legitimate interest in acquiring geographical domain names for resale or development and cites over 4,500 such domain names that it currently owns. Finally, the Respondent denies any intent to target the Complainant’s mark, which was not in existence in July 2008 when the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name – the Complainant claims first use of the mark almost five years later.
Procedural Issue: The Panel also notes that the Complainant objected to the inclusion of Panelist Isenberg on grounds of his prior service in a proceeding involving the same Respondent and counsel, despite the Complainant itself having nominated Isenberg, but the Panel found the objection without consequence given full declarations of impartiality and the unanimous outcome.
Held: The Respondent has attached evidence, such as a Wikipedia article and Internet search results, supporting its claim that “U District” is a geographic term referring to a section of Seattle, Washington, and the Complainant acknowledges as much. The Respondent has also established that it has been in the business of investing in domain names for nearly twenty years, including thousands of geographic names, and that it associated the disputed Domain Name with relevant geographic websites for years, as well as offering it for resale. The Panel finds on this factual record that both activities represent a use in connection with a bona fide commercial activity consistent with the Policy. Further, the record does not indicate that the registration of the disputed Domain Name was a pretext for attacking the Complainant’s trademark.
The Respondent acquired the Domain Name in July 2008, nearly five years before the Complainant claims first use of its mark and over five and a half years before the Complainant was even incorporated. It was virtually impossible for the Respondent to have registered the domain in contemplation of a mark not yet in existence and an organization not yet formed, and found no evidence of anticipatory registration or nascent trademark rights, see WIPO Overview 3.1 § 3.8.1. The Complainant’s arguments that the domain’s identical nature and passive holding together supported bad faith, and that the Respondent’s USD 23,000 counter-offer evidenced intent to sell to the trademark holder above cost was also rejected as insufficient without the necessary foundation of showing that the Respondent selected the Domain Name in contemplation of Complainant’s mark.
RDNH: The fact that the disputed Domain Name was created nearly thirty years ago and is composed of a common geographic term should have given the Complainant pause in assessing the likelihood of prevailing on the second and third elements of the Complaint. The Complainant was in contact with the Respondent and could have ascertained the nature of the Respondent’s business and when the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name, before undertaking and imposing the costs and burdens of a UDRP proceeding. The Panel finds on this record that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Internally represented
Respondent’s Counsel: ESQwire .com PC, United States
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This is a crisp and well-reasoned decision from a distinguished three-member Panel led by W. Scott Blackmer, reaffirming several core UDRP principles that are too often tested in cases involving geographic terms and domain investors.
The Panel correctly grounded its analysis in the nature of the term itself. “U District” is a recognized geographic descriptor for a neighborhood in Seattle, a fact supported by the record and acknowledged by the Complainant. Against that backdrop, the Respondent’s long-standing business model of investing in geographic domain names, coupled with its historical use and offering of the Domain Name for resale, readily satisfied Policy ¶4(c). There was no indication that the registration was a pretext for targeting the Complainant.
Timing was, as so often, dispositive. The Respondent acquired the Domain Name in 2008, years before the Complainant’s claimed first use and even before the Complainant’s incorporation. As the Panel succinctly observed, it is “virtually impossible” to target a mark that does not yet exist. The Complainant’s attempt to rely on passive holding and the Domain Name’s identical nature could not overcome this fundamental deficiency. Nor did the Respondent’s USD 23,000 counter-offer assist the Complainant, as offering a domain for sale at market value is not evidence of bad faith absent proof of targeting.
The RDNH finding is well deserved. The geographic nature of the Domain Name, its age, and the readily ascertainable timeline of acquisition should have given the Complainant pause. Instead, the Complainant proceeded despite clear obstacles, even after direct contact with the Respondent that could have clarified the underlying facts. As the Panel recognized, the UDRP is not a mechanism to pressure domain investors into selling descriptive or geographic domain names at below-market prices.
The Panel also briefly addressed the Complainant’s procedural objection to Panelist Isenberg, rightly dismissing it as inconsequential given the full disclosure of impartiality and the unanimity of the decision. Overall, this is a strong reaffirmation that geography, timing, and legitimate investment activity remain powerful defenses under the Policy, and that overreaching complaints may properly attract a finding of abuse.
Refiling Succeeds Where New Registrant and Clear Targeting Align
<sunbet .com>
Panelist: Mr. Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Brief Facts: The Complainants, established 1979, are part of the Sun International Group, operating hotels, casinos, and resorts including the iconic Sun City resort. The SUNBET sports betting platform was launched in November 2013 and is available at <sunbet .co .za>. The First Complainant holds the registered word mark SUNBET in South Africa (September 26, 2014), Botswana (November 7, 2014), and Brazil (September 3, 2019); the Second Complainant holds SUN CITY registrations in Australia, Botswana, and the European Union.
The disputed Domain Name was acquired by the current registrant in 2022 and redirects to a Chinese-language gaming website at sunbet321 .com and then sun1bet1 .com. The Complainant alleges that the use of both the SUNBET and SUN CITY trademarks in the disputed Domain Name and on the website redirected by it, cannot be a coincidence, but rather a clear targeting of the Complainants by the Respondent who acquired the disputed Domain Name during the course of 2022. The Respondent did not file a Response.
Procedural Issue: This matter concerns a refiled Complaint, the disputed Domain Name having previously been the subject of WIPO Case No. D2014-1190, in which transfer was denied. The present Complaint is not merely a repetition of that earlier record, see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.18. The Registrar-disclosed details in this proceeding identify a registrant different from the registrant named in the prior case, and the record contains supporting materials consistent with a later acquisition of the disputed Domain Name that postdates the original dispute.
In the absence of any Response, and on the present record as a whole, the Panel is prepared to accept that the Complaint is based on a sufficiently new factual matrix to warrant consideration on the merits. The Panel, therefore, admits the refiled complaint, while emphasizing that its findings below are based on the present record and the circumstances now alleged, rather than any reassessment of issues already decided on the earlier record.
Held: The Respondent’s use trades on the Complainants’ trademarks and suggests sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement by the Complainants. The Panel finds this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services capable of conferring rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. Also, and on the available record, the lack of evidence as to any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed Domain Name, corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name, see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1.
The Panel is satisfied on the present record that the disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith. The evidence shows that the disputed Domain Name redirects Internet users to a gaming website invoking the Complainants’ SUNBET and SUN CITY trademarks and representing itself, in translation, as the “SUNBET SUN CITY latest official website”. This strongly suggests an intentional effort to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ marks as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Considering in particular the identical nature of the disputed Domain Name and the Complainants’ mark; the redirected website’s express invocation of both SUNBET and SUN CITY trademarks; the misleading representation that the website is the “latest official website”; the absence of any plausible explanation from the Respondent; and the Respondent’s use of a privacy service for the registration of the disputed Domain Name, which while not conclusive, may in these circumstances lend further support to an inference of bad faith, the Panel finds that the disputed Domain Name was acquired and has been used in bad faith.
Transfer
Complainant’s Counsel: Adams & Adams Attorneys, South Africa
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This decision reflects a careful and principled application of the UDRP’s refiling doctrine, coupled with a straightforward finding of bad faith where targeting is evident on the record. Panelist Wilson Pinheiro Jabur properly begins by addressing the procedural hurdle: whether a previously denied complaint can be refiled. Consistent with WIPO Overview 3.1 ¶4.18, the Panel accepts the case on the basis of a genuinely new factual matrix, namely, a different registrant and a post-prior-decision acquisition of the Domain Name.
That threshold determination is critical and well-reasoned. The Panel avoids revisiting the earlier case on its merits and instead confines itself to the present circumstances. This disciplined approach preserves finality while allowing the Policy to address materially changed facts, particularly where ownership of a domain name has shifted.
On the merits, the case is relatively clear. The Domain Name is identical to the Complainants’ SUNBET mark, and the Respondent’s use goes well beyond passive holding. The redirection to a Chinese-language gaming site that explicitly invokes both SUNBET and SUN CITY, and presents itself as the “latest official website,” leaves little room for ambiguity. This is classic impersonation and falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The absence of a Response further reinforces the inference of bad faith, particularly in light of the specific and corroborated allegations.
This case stands in contrast to those where panels are asked to infer targeting from thin or ambiguous evidence. Here, the Respondent’s own use of the Domain Name supplies the necessary proof. The decision underscores that while refiling is exceptional, it will be permitted where there is a bona fide change in circumstances, and that clear evidence of impersonation will readily satisfy the Policy’s bad faith requirement.
Same Name, Earlier Registration: Personal Use Defeats Late-Formed Rights
Ivan Cornejo LLC v. IVAN CORNEJO, Forum Case No. FA2603002208524
<ivancornejo .com>
Panelist: Mr. Sebastian M. W. Hughes
Brief Facts: The Complainant, incorporated on November 20, 2022, is a Florida limited liability company, holds intellectual property rights associated with the musician Ivan Cornejo. The Complainant owns the USPTO trademark (filed: August 25, 2023; registered: October 15, 2024) for the word mark IVAN CORNEJO in classes 9, 25, and 41. The Respondent is an individual named Ivan Cornejo, sharing his legal name with the musician, who registered the disputed Domain Name on July 8, 2020, and has used the Domain Name since April 2024 for a personal blog covering food, drink, and travel. The Respondent has previously rejected an approach from a domain name broker via GoDaddy, offering to purchase the disputed Domain Name on behalf of an anonymous buyer for amounts in excess of US$20,000.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name on July 8, 2020, which coincides with the time period when Ivan Cornejo, the musician, released his first song and began achieving viral success on TikTok and other social media platforms. The disputed Domain Name was not resolved to an active website until April 26, 2024. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s use and registration of the disputed Domain Name is a blatant attempt to cybersquat and to unjustly capitalise on the Complainant’s fame and goodwill.
The Respondent contends that he, who shares the same name as the musician Ivan Cornejo, is using the disputed Domain Name in respect of a blog website related to travel, food, and beverages, and has not, at any time, attempted to gain monetarily from his registration of the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent further contends that he had no knowledge of the Complainant at the time he registered the disputed Domain Name. He first became aware of the Complainant in or around 2023, several years after he registered the disputed Domain Name.
Held: The Complainant was incorporated on November 20, 2022, relies on its rights in the Trademark in this proceeding, and filed its application for registration of the Trademark on August 25, 2023. The Complainant’s registration for the Trademark relies upon dates of first use/first use in commerce of August 2021 (in respect of Class 9), January 31, 2023 (Class 25), and January 31, 2023 (Class 41). The Complainant does not expressly rely on any common law rights in this proceeding which predate the Complainant’s date of incorporation; and the above dates of first use/first use in commerce in respect of its registration for the Trademark.
The Complainant further asserts that the individual musician Ivan Cornejo first rose to prominence in 2020, but has not adduced any evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence before this Panel of the individual musician Ivan Cornejo possessing any goodwill or reputation in his name as an indicator of trade source prior to the date of registration of the disputed Domain Name; and any such goodwill or reputation, if it existed prior to July 8, 2020, having been assigned to the Complainant upon (or following) its incorporation.
RDNH: In light of the fact both the Complainant and its registration for the Trademark did not exist at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name, the Complainant and its legal representatives ought to have known that it would be impossible to demonstrate that, as contended by the Complainant in the Amended Complaint, the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s then non-existent Trademark.
There is no evidence to confirm the Respondent’s suspicion that the Complainant was behind the anonymous purchase approach in 2024. Accordingly, the Panel cannot conclude that this proceeding was a “Plan B” case or that a finding of RDNH is justified. Nonetheless, in all the circumstances, there can be no question that the Complainant and its legal representatives ought to have appreciated that it would be unable to establish the third limb under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Mark D. Passler, Blank Rome LLP, USA
Respondent’s Counsel: Joanna M. Myers, Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, USA
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This is a straightforward but important decision by Panelist Sebastian M. W. Hughes, reaffirming that timing and identity remain decisive under the UDRP, particularly where a respondent bears the very name reflected in the domain.
The Respondent, an individual named Ivan Cornejo, registered the Domain Name in 2020, well before the Complainant was incorporated in 2022 and before any demonstrated trademark rights arose. The Complainant’s case depended on asserting that the musician had already achieved sufficient notoriety by 2020, but critically failed to adduce evidence of reputation or goodwill at that time, let alone any assignment of such rights to the Complainant. This evidentiary gap was fatal. As the Panel correctly noted, there was no basis to conclude that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of a then non-existent trademark.
Equally significant is the Respondent’s legitimate interest. The Respondent shares the exact name reflected in the Domain Name and has used it for a personal blog unrelated to the Complainant’s asserted business. This is a classic example of a respondent being commonly known by the domain name within the meaning of the Policy, and it underscores the limits of trademark enforcement where personal name rights are involved.
The Panel’s analysis of bad faith follows naturally. Without evidence of targeting at the time of registration, the claim cannot succeed. The Complainant’s reliance on subsequent fame and later trademark rights does not retroactively convert a good-faith registration into a bad-faith one. Nor does the Respondent’s refusal to sell the Domain Name, even in the face of a substantial offer, suggest any improper motive.
The RDNH finding is well justified. The Panel emphasized that the Complainant and its counsel ought to have recognized the impossibility of proving bad faith registration given the timeline. While the Panel stopped short of labeling the case as a “Plan B” attempt, the conclusion is clear: bringing a complaint in the face of such obvious chronological barriers constitutes an abuse of the Policy.
This decision is a useful reminder that the UDRP does not override the basic principle that individuals are entitled to use their own names in domain names, particularly where those names were registered before any competing trademark rights arose.
Alleged Domain Theft and Ransom Demands Fall Outside UDRP’s Limited Scope
Utility Services Advisory Group, Inc. v. Syed Abidi, WIPO Case No. D2026-0126
<bitcoinusamining.com> and 16 others
Panelist: Mr. Andrew D. S. Lothian
Brief Facts: The Complainant incorporated in 2016 (effective April 2013), is a Florida corporation operating as a licensed energy broker and consultant under primary brands USA Group and USA Group Energy. It holds no registered trademarks and claims common law rights in ten marks including USA GROUP ENERGY, USA ENERGY, GET MY COMPANY REFUND, and others, all based on alleged continuous use in commerce from dates ranging between 2013 and 2025. On or about October 23, 2025, the Complainant’s GoDaddy account was compromised: an unidentified actor accessed the account, unlocked seventeen domain names, redirected nameservers to Cloudflare, inserted MX records enabling email interception, and initiated transfers of all seventeen domains to a new registrar. The Complainant provides evidence that the threat actor then issued ransom demands by telephone, voicemail, and text message, threatening to redirect domains to competitors and claiming control of Complainant’s cryptocurrency wallets, and the Complainant reported these to the FBI on October 24, 2025. GoDaddy later confirmed it could not reverse the transfers and referred the matter to the UDRP.
The Pakistan-based Respondent, describing himself as a multinational domain investor with over 1,200 domain names, claims to have purchased all seventeen domains through a WhatsApp transaction with an individual identifying himself as “Mike Campbell,” a US-based seller who provided a driver’s license and passport photograph, supplied valid GoDaddy authorization codes, and accepted payment in USDT cryptocurrency. The Respondent further contends he had no knowledge of the alleged fraud, no relationship with the ransomware actor, and first learned of any dispute upon receipt of the Complaint. No WhatsApp transcripts, USDT transaction hashes, wallet addresses, or payment records were produced, though the Respondent claimed these were not retained as the transaction appeared routine. The Respondent in response to a procedural order, contends that the terms consist of common or descriptive words such as “USA”, “Energy”, and “Group”, which are widely used in commerce. The Respondent had no knowledge of any alleged trademark rights in such terms and regarded the disputed Domain Names as suitable for domain name investment purposes.
Held: The Panelist declines to determine the case on its merits, finding it unsuitable for resolution under the Policy and identifies the core issue not as cybersquatting but as a contested factual dispute over the provenance of the domain transfers, specifically, whether the Respondent was involved in or had knowledge of the alleged fraud. The Panel acknowledged that the DNS and nameserver evidence was technically consistent with fraudulent redelegation occurring before or independently of Respondent’s acquisition, and found the record inconclusive as to Respondent’s direct involvement. See Aleksandr Danilchuk v. Vadym Didenko (WIPO Case No. D2020-1981) and WIPO Overview 3.1 § 4.14.6, the Panel held that where a respondent advances a substantive counter-narrative to allegations of theft or hijacking, the UDRP – lacking witness examination, cross-examination, discovery, and forensic investigative capacity, is not the appropriate forum.
The Panel distinguished cases where fraud-based UDRP complaints had been upheld (e.g., LDW Software, LLC v. Stella Chang, WIPO Case No. D2017-0430), noting those involved uncontested allegations with no competing claim to legitimate ownership. For completeness, the Panel also noted that had it reached the merits, the Complainant would likely have failed on the first element in any event: corporate registrations, contractual references, logo designs, and template marketing communications are insufficient to establish secondary meaning in unregistered marks without supporting evidence of sales volumes, advertising spend, customer numbers, or media recognition, none of which was provided despite an express invitation in Procedural Order No. 1.
As the case is not suitable for resolution under the Policy, the Complaint fails, and it follows that the Respondent’s claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking also falls to be denied. The dismissal of the Complaint does not restrict the Complainant from pursuing the matter in an alternative (court) forum, and the Panel does not address this decision to any such forum that might ultimately be seized of the dispute.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Internally represented
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This is a thoughtful and restrained decision by Panelist Andrew D. S. Lothian, underscoring an important boundary of the UDRP: it is not equipped to adjudicate contested factual disputes involving alleged hacking or fraud where the record cannot be reliably tested.
The Complainant presented a serious narrative of account compromise, domain hijacking, and ransom demands. However, the Respondent advanced a competing account of an arms-length acquisition via a third-party seller, albeit unsupported by documentary evidence. The Panel did not treat the mere presence of ransomware allegations as sufficient to decline jurisdiction. Rather, it focused on the existence of a substantive counter-narrative that could not be meaningfully assessed within the UDRP’s limited procedural framework. As reflected in WIPO Overview 3.1 § 4.14.6, where a respondent puts forward a plausible alternative explanation to allegations of theft or hijacking, and the dispute turns on competing factual accounts, the UDRP – lacking witness examination, cross-examination, discovery, and forensic investigative capacity – is not the appropriate forum.
The Panel’s approach is commendable for its precision. It avoids an overbroad rule that all fraud-adjacent cases fall outside the Policy, and instead identifies the real constraint: the inability of the UDRP to resolve sharply disputed facts requiring evidentiary testing. This aligns with prior decisions such as Aleksandr Danilchuk v. Vadym Didenko (“ The Policy was not designed to decide whether a domain name was taken with or without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent and to deal with allegations of forgery and theft, as there is generally no hearing available and no opportunity to examine witnesses or to conduct cross-examination. Simply put, this is not the appropriate forum to deal with these issues”), where similarly contested allegations rendered the Policy an unsuitable forum, while distinguishing cases where fraud claims were uncontested and could be accepted on the record.
Notably, the Panel went further and observed that even if it had reached the merits, the Complainant would likely have failed on the first element. The asserted common law marks, comprised largely of descriptive terms such as “USA,” “Energy,” and “Group,” were unsupported by the kind of evidence necessary to establish secondary meaning. The absence of sales data, advertising figures, or market recognition, despite a procedural opportunity to provide such evidence, significantly weakened the Complainant’s position.
The denial of RDNH is also appropriate. While the Complaint ultimately failed, it was grounded in a plausible, if unproven, allegation of serious wrongdoing. This distinguishes it from cases where complainants attempt to misuse the UDRP as leverage in commercial disputes.
Overall, this decision serves as an important reminder that the UDRP is a narrow, purpose-built mechanism for clear cases of cybersquatting. Where disputes hinge on competing narratives of alleged theft or fraud that require evidentiary testing, the appropriate venue is a court of competent jurisdiction, not an administrative proceeding ill-suited to resolve such fact-intensive controversies.
Ankur Raheja is the Editor-in-Chief of the ICA’s new weekly UDRP Case Summary service. Ankur has practiced law in India since 2005 and has been practicing domain name law for over ten years, representing clients from all over the world in UDRP proceedings. He is the founder of Cylaw Solutions.
He is an accredited panelist with ADNDRC (Hong Kong) and MFSD (Italy). Previously, Ankur worked as an Arbitrator/Panelist with .IN Registry for six years. In a advisory capacity, he has worked with NIXI/.IN Registry and Net4 India’s resolution professional.