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 three days is generally rare and also often difficult to prove. But the UDRP looks at this somewhat differently than from a traditional trademark law perspective. Continue reading commentary here.
WIPO and ICA Conclude Comprehensive Review of the UDRP
This initiative was driven by a robust international process that included nearly a dozen consultations with industry leaders, legal experts, and stakeholders. The goal was to identify best practices, establish areas of consensus, and pinpoint potential improvements to the policy. Coordinated by Zak Muscovitch, General Counsel to the ICA and Brian Beckham, WIPO, the project team, comprising experts and UDRP stakeholders from around the world.
Following a period of public comment on the draft, the Final Report is now being shared, including submission to ICANN for consideration in any future UDRP review undertaken by its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). By clearly identifying where stakeholder agreement and disagreement lie, this independent report is expected to significantly benefit and streamline ICANN’s official review process, ensuring any future changes are well-informed and reflective of community input.
The UDRP is the cornerstone for resolving domain name disputes globally, and its effectiveness relies on continuous review and refinement. We thank everyone involved. You can access the complete WIPO/ICA UDRP Review Final Report and background information on WIPO’s website. The Executive Summary Table of Recommendations in the Final Report, is also available here.
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 6.2) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):
‣ KPOP DEMON HUNTERS Acquired Common Law Rights Within 3 Days of Use (kpopdemonhunters .com *with commentary)
‣ Panel: Well Established that 3-Letter Acronyms May Give Rights to Investors (cdw .au *with commentary)
‣ Not a Refiled Case: Complaint Filed by Defaulted Respondent (otstecelevator .com *with commentary)
‣ USPTO Registration’s Claimed Date of “First Use”, is Just That, a Claim that Requires Proof (offerbee .com *with commentary)
‣ Panel: “Not Inconceivable” that Respondent Independently Conceived of Domain Name Without Targeting Complainant (xholidays .com *with commentary)
KPOP DEMON HUNTERS Acquired Common Law Rights Within 3 Days of Use
Netflix Studios, LLC v. Sanchit Sood, WIPO Case No. Case No. D2025-4485
<kpopdemonhunters .com>
Panelist: Mr. Yuji Yamaguchi
Brief Facts: The Complainant officially started operating on April 14, 1998, by offering sales services and renting films “à la carte” under the NETFLIX brand. Then, in 2007, soon after delivering its billionth DVD, the Complainant launched its content streaming platform, offering its members unlimited access to a library of licensed TV shows and films. In 2014, the Complainant expanded further into EU member countries Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany, ultimately surpassing 50 million total members. The Complainant is now one of the world’s leading entertainment services with over 302 million paid memberships in over 190 countries enjoying TV series, films and games across a wide variety of genres and languages. On June 20, 2025, the Complainant released a film named “KPop Demon Hunters.” The film is an animated musical urban fantasy film and follows a K-pop girl group called Huntr/X, who led double lives as demon hunters, and they face off against a rival boy band called the Saja Boys, whose members are secretly demons.
The Complainant asserts that it has filed numerous applications for the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS mark and obtained common law rights in the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS mark around the world prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name. The Complainant adopted the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS mark in March 2021 and began use by June 20, 2025, and the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS film and merchandise quickly gained widespread popularity after launch. The Complainant further alleges that KPOP DEMON HUNTERS is a coined phrase with no meaning in any language and is used exclusively in connection with the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS film and related merchandise. The disputed Domain Name was registered on June 23, 2025 to exploit the fame of the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS mark, either to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website or to lend legitimacy to its email use. The Respondent cannot establish any rights or legitimate interests through the passive holding of the disputed Domain Name.
Held: The Complainant asserts that the Complainant adopted the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS mark in March 2021 and began use at least as early as June 20, 2025, and then has common law rights in the mark sufficient to form the basis of this Complaint. To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the Policy, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services. Since the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS film and merchandise has become immensely and quickly popular in a very short period of time, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established common law rights in the KPOP DEMON HUNTERS mark even before the trademark registration for the purposes of the Policy. Currently, the Complainant owns several registered KPOP DEMON HUNTERS trademarks in the EU and especially one of UK trademark registrations predates the filing of this Complaint.
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s KPOP DEMON HUNTERS film rapidly became famous worldwide after the release on June 20, 2025. The disputed Domain Name was registered soon after the release date. In the circumstances, the Panel is in little doubt that the Respondent, resident in Germany, must have had the Complainant’s KPOP DEMON HUNTERS film in mind when it registered the disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Panel struggles to conceive of any legitimate, bona fide reason for the registration of the disputed Domain Name, particularly noting the composition of the disputed Domain Name.
Transfer
Complainant’s Counsel: Coates IP LLP, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: 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 three days is generally rare and also often difficult to prove. But the UDRP looks at this somewhat differently than from a traditional trademark law perspective. Where the domain name was registered because of “nascent” trademark rights, such as where the Respondent registered the domain name as a result of the Complainant’s announcement of a new corporate name, or where the Respondent registered the domain name because of the Complainant’s trademark application, or like here where a new brand made a big splash very quickly, trademark rights will have been established for the purposes of the UDRP – despite the fact that the “use” may have been very limited or short lived (See UDRP Perspectives at 3.2). Of course, the more distinctive the term the easier it is to make the leap to find nascent trademark rights. It is difficult to envision a more distinctive mark than KPOP DEMON HUNTERS.
Additional comment by Digest Editor, Ankur Raheja: This also recalls an interesting issue that arose in India in 2023–24. Following media reports about the merger of two major media groups, a third party registered a related domain name, <jiohotstar.com>, in September 2023 and, when contacted, demanded payment of fees for a master’s degree in management. What happened next is discussed here, although the dispute did not proceed to a UDRP complaint: BusinessUpturn; TimesofIndia; EconomicTimes (reported widely in the Indian media).
Panel: Well Established that 3-Letter Acronyms May Give Rights to Investors
CDW LLC v. 2 Point Omg Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. DAU2025-0046
<cdw .au>
Panelist: Mr. Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Brief Facts: The US-based Complainant has traded since 1994 under the word-and-logo trademark CDW, offering IT and telecommunications goods and services. It opened an office in Sydney in 2013 to manage Australian sales and now serves about 694 Australian customers. The Complainant owns several Australian trademark registrations for CDW, the earliest is dated May 19, 2015. The Complainant has used the domain <cdw .com> since about 1994 and <au-cdw .com .au> since about 2016 to promote and sell its trademarked goods and services globally and in Australia. The Respondent and its group of companies operate as domain name investors and own several hundred Australian domain names relating to car rental, vehicle hire, and insurance. The disputed Domain Name was registered on September 19, 2022 and has not been resolved to an active website.
The Complainant alleges that the term “cdw” is an invented word with no inherent meaning and that the Respondent has not used the disputed Domain Name in respect of an active website. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent would have been aware of the trademark at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name, and there is no other apparent legitimate reason for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name, except for selling it to the Complainant. The Respondent contends that in addition to other meanings, the acronym “cdw” is commonly used as an abbreviation for “Collision Damage Waiver”. It further adds that he has been the owner of the domain name <cdw .com .au> since April 11, 2008 and in terms of the auDA’s Priority Status Allocation Process for the launch of .au direct names, the Respondent had an automatic statutory right to apply for the exact-match .au direct domain <cdw .au>.
Held: The dictionary definitions relied upon by both Parties in this proceeding demonstrate that the acronym “cdw” is commonly used as an abbreviation for “Collision Damage Waiver” and the Respondent further submitted more evidence from “Acronym Finder” showing many other uses of the acronym “cdw”, unrelated to the Complainant. It is well-established that the registration of three letter acronyms by domain name investors may give rise to rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of the Policy, provided there is no evidence that the registrant is targeting a third party’s trademark. In light of the established business of the Respondent and its group of companies as investors in domain names relating to the insurance and vehicle rental sectors, and the prior registration by the Respondent’s related entity, since April 11, 2008, of the domain name <cdw .com .au>, the Panel finds that the Respondent has demonstrated genuine rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name.
There is no evidence before the Panel to support the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has registered the disputed Domain Name for the purposes of selling it to the Complainant. The acknowledged passive holding of the disputed Domain Name, absent any evidence of an offer to sell the disputed Domain Name, suggests the contrary. The Respondent’s assertion that it learned of the Complainant and the trademark only after receiving the Complainant’s letter before action in October 2025 supports the view that it did not target them when registering the disputed Domain Name. No direct evidence to the contrary was presented. In all the circumstances, the Panel is unable to draw the inference requested by the Complainant, namely, that the Respondent would have been aware of the trademark at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name, and there is no other apparent legitimate reason for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name.
RDNH: The Panel considers there is force in the Respondent’s submissions that the Complainant, being represented by experienced counsel, ought not to have commenced this proceeding absent any evidence that the Respondent had knowledge of, and was targeting, the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name. The Complainant’s allegations of bad faith registration or use are based on the bare assertion that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant, an assertion which is contradicted by the evidence of the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed Domain Name.
Absent any evidence of an offer to sell the disputed Domain Name, the Complainant and its counsel ought to have recognised that it would not be possible to demonstrate bad faith, based merely on assumption and conjecture. The Panel also considers that the Complainant and its counsel ought to have recognised that, including in particular the fact the disputed Domain Name consists of a three letter acronym with, amongst other meanings, an established dictionary meaning wholly unrelated to the Complainant’s goods and services provided under the trademark, it would not be possible to demonstrate that the Respondent, as a domain name investor, did not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, irrespective of the fact the disputed Domain Name has not been used.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Actuate IP, Australia
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Although adjudicated under the .au Policy, this case is consistent with how it would be handled under the UDRP. It is interesting to note that ccTLD policies, though they usually differ somewhat from the UDRP, have been heavily influenced by the UDRP as well as by cases under the UDRP.
Not a Refiled Case: Complaint Filed by Defaulted Respondent
湖州欧迪电梯有限公司 (Huzhou Oudi Elevator Co., Ltd.) v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, ADNDRC Case No. HK-2502023
<otstecelevator .com>
Panelist(s): Mr. Matthew Murphy (Presiding), Dr. Matthew Kennedy, and Mr. Gary Soo
Brief Facts: The Complainant claims that it manufactures and sells various types of vertical elevators, escalators, and moving walkways and its business operations primarily cover China, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The Complainant claims that shortly after its establishment it acquired the “OTSTEC” trademark through an assignment approved by the CNIPA in early 2016 and that it also owns two other similar trademark registrations. The Complainant claims that it registered the domain name <otstecelevator .com>, which is a combination of its trademark “OTSTEC” and word “elevator”, on June 26, 2016. It was the subject of a domain name dispute filed by the Respondent on March 31, 2025 vide case No. HK-2501984, and that the Complainant had no knowledge of this case, and therefore did not respond to the complaint in that case, with the result being that the domain name was ordered to be transferred to the Respondent on May 20, 2025.
The Complainant requests that the Panel review the decision in case no. HK2501984 on the grounds that the service of documents in the previous case was inappropriate and/or invalid and the proceedings thereof were non-compliant. Further, the Complainant claims it owns the trademark “OTSTEC” and the previous panel’s order to transfer the domain name to the Respondent was unfair and lacked reasonable grounds, and that the Previous Decision was made due to the misleading and/or false statements by the Respondent (i.e. the complainant in previous case HK-2501984). The Complainant claims that the Respondent has been continuously harassing and suppressing the Complainant with trademark disputes since 2023 – for instance, the Respondent filed an application of non-use cancellation for three consecutive years against the Trademark Registration No. 17882602 “OTSTEC”, which was maintained for registration by the CNIPA.
The Respondent claims that the Complainant’s Trademark Registration No. 17882602 for “OTSTEC” was applied for registration by its affiliated company, USOTIS ELEVATOR CO., LTD., and subsequently transferred to the Complainant in bad faith. The Respondent claims that the CNIPA has determined in its opposition rulings against the registrations for “EOTISTEC”, “OTISTEC”, and “EOTISTEC” respectively, that such trademarks have constituted similar trademarks regarding the Respondents cited trademark registrations for similar goods, in Class 7. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant was aware of the Respondent and deliberately created confusion with the Respondent, which could easily lead to public confusion about the source of goods or services and is sufficient to prove the malicious intent in the original registration and operation the disputed Domain Name by the Complainant herein.
Substantive Matter: The Panel notes that this is not a “refiled case” in the sense in which that term is generally understood, because this case was not filed by an unsuccessful complainant but rather by a defaulted respondent. See Question 4.18 in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0. Transfer of the disputed Domain Name has been executed since the Previous Decision. Even though the disputed Domain Name in this case is the same, the Parties’ roles are reversed as there is a new holder of the disputed Domain Name.
In this scenario, the defaulted respondent, now the Complainant, asks the Panel to review the validity of the previous decision. The Panel considers that it does not have the power or authority to reopen previous case HK2501984. The Policy itself contains no appeal mechanism – see Question 4.18 from WIPO Overview 3.0. However, the Policy does not prevent a domain name registrant or a complainant from seeking remedies from a court of competent jurisdiction, as confirmed in Paragraph 4(k) of the Policy.
Held: The Complainant claims that the Respondent filed the previous complaint in bad faith, as the Respondent (as the original complainant) acknowledged the existence of the “OTSTEC” trademarks owned by the Complainant (as the original respondent). The Respondent has since registered the disputed Domain Name. The Complainant claims that the circumstances fall within Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, which provides that “you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct.” Upon considering all submissions presented herein, it suffices to note the following.
The Panel does not consider that the history of disputes between the Parties regarding the relevant trademarks and the disputed Domain Name constitutes a pattern of conduct as stated in the proviso to Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. The pattern of “such conduct”, in this context, refers to the registration of a domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. This does not encompass other types of conduct, such as the initiation of trademark office procedures. In the current case, the Respondent’s filing of a one-time domain name complaint in Case No. HK2501984 against the disputed Domain Name, which resulted in the subsequent transfer, does not constitute a pattern.
In a word, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not registered the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Regarding the claim that the Respondent’s previous domain name complaint in Case No. HK2501984 was never filed for legitimate commercial use, but was a tactic to deprive the Complainant of its lawful domain name rights by misusing the dispute resolution process, the Panel considers that such claim appears to be an accusation of “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking” (RDNH) as regards the Respondent’s previous complaint. In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to satisfy Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: OR & PARTNERS
Respondent’s Counsel: Elian Xue from KANGXINLEGAL
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: This was a very unusual case and received an excellent write-up by the ADNDRC on LinkedIn. It is reproduced here in its entirety with the permission of the ADNDRC:
“The Centre recently administered two disputes concerning the same domain name, but with the Parties’ roles reversed due to a change in registrant. The complainant in the earlier case became the respondent in the later one, and vice versa.
In the first case, the original respondent failed to file a response and the Panel ordered transfer to the complainant. The registrar implemented the decision and executed the transfer, having not received any documentation indicating that a lawsuit was commenced within the ten business day period following the notification of the UDRP decision. Rather than filing a lawsuit within the time limit or after the transfer of the domain name, the defaulted respondent opted to attempt to reclaim the domain name through the UDRP and initiated a new complaint against the original complainant, relying on its registered “OTSTEC” trademarks and asking the Panel to revisit the previous decision.
A three-member Panel, Matthew Murphy (麦铭辉), Dr. Matthew Kennedy, and Gary Soo, first confirmed that this was not a “refiled case” in the usual sense, as the new Complaint was brought not by an unsuccessful complainant but by a defaulted respondent. The Panel nevertheless stressed that it had no authority to reopen or review the prior case, because the UDRP provides no appeal mechanism. Any challenge to the earlier decision must instead be brought before a competent court. The Panel therefore limited its assessment strictly to the merits of the current case.
On the merits, the new Complainant argued that the Respondent had filed the earlier UDRP complaint in bad faith, despite being aware of the Complainant’s “OTSTEC” trademarks, and that this should constitute a pattern of bad-faith conduct under Paragraph 4(b)(ii), which concerns registering domain names to prevent a trademark owner from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. The Panel disagreed, clarifying that the parties’ history of disputes regarding the relevant trademarks and the disputed domain name does not amount to the type of “pattern” contemplated by Paragraph 4(b)(ii). That provision does not encompass actions such as initiating trademark office proceedings, nor does a single UDRP complaint leading to a transfer constitute such a pattern.
The Panel ultimately found no bad-faith registration and denied the Complaint. This case illustrates that a defaulted respondent seeking a “retrial” cannot rely on the UDRP mechanism: even if a new complaint is procedurally accepted, it will almost certainly fail because the current registrant’s acquisition of the domain name through the prior UDRP proceeding cannot satisfy the bad-faith element. The UDRP is not designed to correct or revisit previous decisions; only a court can provide that remedy.”
USPTO Registration’s Claimed Date of “First Use”, is Just That, a Claim that Requires Proof
OfferBee Home, Inc. v. Jason Moss, WIPO Case No. D2025-4517
<offerbee .com>
Panelist: Mr. William F. Hamilton
Brief Facts: The Complainant operates the website at <offerbeehome .com>, which provides an online portal for the marketing, sale, and rental of real estate. The Complainant is the owner of the US trademark for the OFFERBEE composite mark (registered on June 3, 2025; first use: May 3, 2021). The Respondent is an entrepreneur involved in real estate and Internet businesses and is also a YouTuber with over 3,000 subscribers on his channel. The Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name on February 9, 2024, from a domain name broker for USD 2,272.17 and it is used in connection with a website also offering services related to real estate. The Respondent also claims to have spent USD 9,580.05 to create his website. The Complainant alleges that it had well established rights in the mark when the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith to target the Complainant for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to its own website.
The Respondent contends that he was unaware of the Complainant or the trademark when he acquired the disputed Domain Name. He argues that the Complainant has failed to establish unregistered trademark rights that date back to 2021 for this proceeding. Since the trademark was registered a year after the disputed Domain Name, and he claims the Complainant has not proven any common law rights in the trademark, the Complainant lacked trademark rights when the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name. Additionally, the Respondent contends that the decision to obtain the Domain Name was made with his business partner, and he has spent thousands of dollars on purchasing and developing the disputed Domain Name’s website. He also asserts that the term “bee” is common in the real estate broker market and has provided evidence of other names he considered, and also noted that the Complainant has not provided any evidence over its reputation associated with the Mark or of the Respondent’s alleged targeting.
Held: The Panel observes that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used the disputed Domain Name in connection with a real estate business. Although the Complainant (launched in 2021) showed use of the trademark before the Respondent acquired the domain, apart from two 2021 website screenshots it provided no evidence of the trademark’s use or reputation to suggest the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s mark or business when acquiring the disputed Domain Name. In essence, the Complainant seeks to rely on its priority with the USPTO dating to its claimed first use in commerce but does little to show its use of the trademark prior to the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds the evidence of discussions with the business partner about the project name and disputed domain unclear. The correspondence shows several options considered (including “homes” being in the Domain Name), but some were rejected because they matched existing businesses or competitors, not the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Respondent suggests a low level of recognition of the Complainant, and claims not to have been aware of the Complainant’s existence.
The Respondent has claimed that it was unaware of the trademark or the Complainant, based on the Respondent’s declaration. The Respondent has demonstrated through its Annexes that the Respondent is active in real estate and Internet businesses, thus, not a prototypical cybersquatter, not previously involved in domain name disputes. The Respondent has also provided evidence that the disputed Domain Name was chosen as the word “bee” is apparently used by others in the real estate brokerage industry to signify activity, hard work, and diligence. The Complainant has not provided any evidence of revenue figures, advertising expenses, press coverage, third-party references, or market penetration data to support claims of unregistered rights in the trademark that could have been known by the Respondent when it acquired the disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds, on balance, that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name in bad faith targeting the Complainant or its trademark rights because the Complainant has failed to provide evidence that such claimed trademark rights were known by the Respondent at the time that the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Davis McGrath LLC, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: Motsnyi IP Group, Serbia
Case Comment by Editor, Ankur Raheja and ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
The Panel’s approach correctly reflects established UDRP practice; a trademark registration’s claimed date of first use is just that, a claim. As set out in UDRP Perspectives at 1.7, it is well established that the claimed date of first use in commerce on a US trademark registration certificate is, alone, not evidence of common law rights as of that date. Such assertions therefore need to be supported by the same kind and volume of evidence required to demonstrate common law trademark rights, but as of the date of claimed first use in commerce. See for example, Equity Trust Company v. Domain Vault (NAF FA2112001976315):
“… the date of first use in commerce claimed on a trademark application is of limited evidentiary value in administrative proceedings brought under the Policy. For the purposes of the present proceeding, this date amounts to a mere assertion which would still require to be suitably evidenced. Absent additional supporting evidence, which is lacking on the present record, the Panel is not prepared to find that the Complainant had unregistered trademark rights in a relevant trademark at the material time.”
This case also demonstrated the importance of what is arguably the key component of the UDRP, namely targeting. The Panel found that not only did the Complainant not “provid[e] any evidence of revenue figures, advertising expenses, press coverage, third-party references, or market penetration data to support claims of unregistered rights”, but that the Complainant also failed to show that “the trademark that could have been known by the Respondent when it acquired the disputed Domain Name”. That is the key: intention. Intention requires awareness, and awareness requires reputation. That is why the Panel ultimately found that “the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name in bad faith targeting the Complainant”. Well done, Panel. Also congratulations to the Respondent’s counsel, Igor Motsnyi who is my co-author in UDRP Perspectives.
Panel: “Not Inconceivable” that Respondent Independently Conceived of Domain Name Without Targeting Complainant
X Holidays Limited v. Obaid Albloushi, WIPO Case No. D2025-4717
<xholidays .com>
Panelist: Mr. Jeremy Speres
Brief Facts: The Complainant is a UK-incorporated online travel agency and booking platform trading under the XHOLIDAYS mark. Its company name was changed to “X Holidays Limited” on November 6, 2023 and hosts Domain Name <x-holidays .com> which was registered in 2022. The Complainant owns the UK trademark for the series of marks X-HOLIDAYS, XHOLIDAYS, and XHOLIDAY, having a registration date of March 7, 2025. The Respondent is a UAE based entrepreneur that operates several businesses incorporated and licensed to trade in Dubai, including: X Hub Technologies L.L.C., X Dynamics FZE and E X Holidays Travel and Tourism L.L.C., trading as “X Holidays”, a travel agency. The disputed Domain Name was acquired by the Respondent in February 2025 and currently does not resolve to any active website. On November 18, 2025, it resolved to a template ecommerce website without any substantive content.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith in order to take advantage of confusion with the Complainant’s mark to benefit commercially the Respondent’s competing travel agency. The Respondent contends that he registered and has used the disputed Domain Name in good faith for a bona fide travel agency business without any intention of targeting the Complainant and that the disputed Domain Name is part of a family of X-incorporating business names and was chosen for this reason. The Respondent also contends that he is based in Dubai and does not compete with the Complainant, who is based in the UK and who targets mass-market travel bookings as opposed to the Respondent’s offering which focuses on individual relationships with wealthy UAE-based clients. The Respondent requests that the complaint be denied and a finding of RDNH.
Held: The Complainant claims goodwill in its X-HOLIDAYS mark and asserts that the Respondent has attempted to trade on this goodwill. The Complainant does not, however, provide any evidence showing that its mark enjoyed any goodwill or a reputation when the disputed Domain Name was registered or first used by the Respondent. The Respondent appears to have acquired the disputed Domain Name in February 2025, which is before the Complainant’s mark was registered. The Complainant’s domain name <x-holidays .com> was registered in 2022, yet without more this too does not establish when the Complainant’s mark was first used. Importantly, it is not clear from the record whether the Complainant had used its mark at all prior to registration and first use of the disputed Domain Name by the Respondent, let alone whether the mark enjoyed any reputation or goodwill that the Respondent might have sought to take advantage of.
The Respondent is based in the UAE and there is no evidence in the record showing any exposure of the Complainant’s mark or trade by the Complainant in the UAE, which might have brought the Complainant’s mark to the Respondent’s attention. Apart from the similarities between the names of the parties’ respective travel agencies, there are no obvious indicators of targeting apparent on the Respondent’s erstwhile websites, which were very different to that of the Complainant, including its logo, imagery, text, and general look and feel. The Panel has also not been able to find any history of cybersquatting on the Respondent’s part. The Complainant’s mark is not particularly distinctive inherently, consisting as it does of a commonplace letter of the Latin alphabet plus the descriptive term “holidays”. It is, therefore, not inconceivable that a third party might have independently conceived of the disputed Domain Name without any intention of targeting the Complainant.
RDNH: The Complainant is unrepresented, it being accepted that represented complainants are held to a higher standard than unrepresented ones. The Complainant filed its trade mark application, and its domain name was registered and company name changed, prior to registration and use of the disputed Domain Name by the Respondent. Although this is insufficient, on balance of probabilities, to establish goodwill or a reputation in the Complainant’s hands or the date of first use of the Complainant’s mark, it is at least suggestive of a first use date prior to registration and use of the disputed Domain Name by the Respondent.
The parties also trade in the same industry. This all suggests that it was not entirely unreasonable of the Complainant to bring the Complaint, and that it is possible that the Complainant genuinely believed this to be a case of cybersquatting. It failed, however, to present sufficient evidence to support its case. On balance of probabilities, the Panel does not consider it more likely than not that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, and the Panel declines to find RDNH.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Internally represented
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Once we see that the Respondent operates a travel agency under the name “X Holidays”, the case is nearly over because the case appears to be primarily characterized as a trademark dispute rather than a cybersquatting dispute. However, I say “nearly” over, because there is one more aspect to check out, which the Panel admirably did here. The Panel also had to ascertain “whether the Complainant had used its mark at all prior to registration and first use of the disputed Domain Name by the Respondent, let alone whether the mark enjoyed any reputation or goodwill that the Respondent might have sought to take advantage of”.
I also appreciate that the Panel considered RDNH, without finding it. This is the proper discharge of the Panel’s duty. A Panel should at least expressly consider RDNH when warranted, even if the Panel ultimately exercises its discretion reasonably to decline to find RDNH in the circumstances.
Well done, Panel.
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.