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 under the UDRP. The Panel noted that VENTURE UP consists of common words, that exclusive rights to the word “venture” had been disclaimed, and that there was no evidence that the mark enjoyed such a reputation that the Respondent’s awareness could simply be presumed. Continue reading commentary here.
Join us for this year’s Levine Lecture featuring Nick Gardner, who will present: “26 Years of Deciding UDRP Cases—What Does a Panelist Actually Do, and Why? How Will AI Change This?“ A veteran of UDRP practice, Nick’s experience ranges from early landmark English court cases to presiding over hundreds of disputes as a leading WIPO and Nominet panelist. The session will include an introduction by Zak Muscovitch, opening remarks by Tony Willoughby, and closing remarks from Gerald Levine.
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 6.25) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):
‣ Ordinary Words, Same State, No Targeting (ventureupconsulting.com *with commentary)
‣ Distinctive Mark, But No Evidence of Targeting (mediceuticals.com *with commentary)
‣ Direct Evidence of Targeting Through Website Content (canada-roots.com *with commentary)
‣ Who Bears the Burden When Ownership Is Unclear? (sankaku.net *with commentary)
‣ Criticism Sites Are Not Cybersquatting (reliancehithiumleaks.com *with commentary)
Ordinary Words, Same State, No Targeting
Venture Up Inc. v. Robin Canela, Venture UP Consulting LLC, WIPO Case No. D2026-1908
<ventureupconsulting.com>
Panelist: Ms. Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa
Brief Facts: The US-based Complainant operates a business consultancy offering team-building services. It is the proprietor of US registration for VENTURE UP (word mark), registered on June 9, 2015, claiming a date of first use in 1983. The registration disclaims exclusive rights to use of the word element “venture” apart from the mark as shown. The Complainant operates its primary business website at the domain name <ventureup.com>, for which it provides evidence of use dating to 1998. The disputed Domain Name was registered on July 2, 2024 and at the time of filing, it was resolved to a website operated by “VentureUP Consulting” stating “Empower your business with Innovative Marketing Solutions…” At the time of this Decision, the disputed Domain Name did not resolve to an active website.
On August 19, 2024, the Respondent registered as sole shareholder of an Arizona company established as “Venture UP Consulting LLC”. On March 10, 2026, the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter, followed by a follow-up letter dated May 3, 2026. As noted above, the Complaint was filed on May 3, 2026 and notified to the Respondent on May 8, 2026. On that day, the Respondent emailed the Complainant, offering to transfer the disputed Domain Name, wind down Venture UP Consulting LLC, stop using the “Venture Up” name in business, and remove all online content related to the company. The Respondent also said he did not reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters because he was not actively monitoring the domain’s email address.
The Complainant alleges the Respondent has used the disputed Domain Name in connection with overlapping consulting-related services. Despite receiving cease-and-desist correspondence, the Respondent has continued to use the disputed Domain Name without modification or corrective action. The Respondent contends that the disputed Domain Name was registered in connection with a legitimate small business venture operated by the Respondent and his spouse, and not with any intent to sell, disrupt, or trade on the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent further contends that he was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration and that the website at the disputed Domain Name was a nascent business presence that was never commercially active.
Held: The Panel notes that the Complainant’s rights in the VENTURE UP mark predate the registration of the disputed Domain Name by several years, although its rights to the dominant element “venture” have been disclaimed. Both Parties are located in Arizona, United States, which may imply awareness of each other; on the other hand, the services offered by the Complainant and purported to be offered by the Respondent are different. There is no evidence available to support a finding that the mark, which consists of ordinary words in common use, has sufficient reputation so as to support a finding of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. The Complainant has not provided any evidence that its mark has developed a reputation, for instance, through its promotional activities, recognition in the field or visibility on social media.
The Policy requires the Complainant to provide evidence that, on balance of probabilities, the Respondent has targeted the Complainant. The record does not contain any facts or circumstances connecting the Respondent to the Complainant’s VENTURE UP mark, and the Panel does not believe that the available evidence provides a basis for inferring that such a link exists. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the registration, and future-proposed abandonment, of the disputed Domain Name was related to the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent’s website and social media profiles contain neither direct nor indirect reference to the Complainant, its VENTURE UP mark, or its activities.
The Panel further notes that the Respondent has indicated readiness to transfer the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant and has provided evidence that it deleted social media profiles and ceased business activities related to the disputed Domain Name, and has indicated it will not renew the registration of the disputed Domain Name when it lapses next month. The Respondent’s stated condition was that the Complainant agree not to pursue legal claims against it. While the Respondent’s demonstration of good faith subsequent to the Complaint does not necessarily speak to its intentions at the time of registration, the Complainant’s refusal to accept these terms indicates a potential broader grievance.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Represented internally
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This decision is a useful reminder that the UDRP is not a substitute for trademark infringement litigation. The Complainant established trademark rights and confusing similarity, but the Panel correctly focused on the question that ultimately matters under the Policy: whether the Respondent registered the domain name because of the Complainant and its mark.
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 under the UDRP. The Panel noted that VENTURE UP consists of common words, that exclusive rights to the word “venture” had been disclaimed, and that there was no evidence that the mark enjoyed such a reputation that the Respondent’s awareness could simply be presumed. In the absence of evidence connecting the Respondent to the Complainant, geographic proximity and some overlap in services were not enough. As noted in UDRPPerspectives at 3.3, the onus is on the Complainant to prove its case and this includes providing evidence of the Respondent’s intention to target a specific Complainant rather than anyone who may have a trademark for the corresponding or similar term.
The Panel also appropriately distinguished between overlapping services and targeting. The Complainant’s business centered on team-building and organizational consulting, while the Respondent’s website promoted marketing and business consulting services. That distinction weakened any inference that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the Complainant specifically in mind.
Perhaps most noteworthy is that the Respondent offered to transfer the domain name, wind up the company, discontinue use of the name, and remove related online content, yet still prevailed. Many decisions treat such conduct as evidence supporting a complainant’s position. Here, the Panel properly recognized that a willingness to resolve a dispute does not establish that the original registration was undertaken in bad faith. The Respondent’s offer may have reflected a desire to avoid further conflict rather than an admission of cybersquatting.
The Panel’s approach reflects a careful application of the Policy rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the existence of a prior trademark registration. The decision reinforces a fundamental principle of the UDRP: even where trademark rights predate a domain name registration, a complainant must still prove that the respondent targeted the complainant’s mark. Where that evidence is lacking, the complaint should fail, as it did here.
Distinctive Mark, But No Evidence of Targeting
Westel Beheer B.V. v. DomainMarket.com, Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2026-1931
<mediceuticals.com>
Panelist: Mr. Matthew Kennedy
Brief Facts: The Complainant is a Dutch company that develops and distributes scalp and hair care solutions. The Complainant holds International trademark registration for MEDICEUTICALS, registered on April 8, 2022, designating multiple jurisdictions. Mediceutical Laboratories LP (“MLLP”) is a New Jersey limited partnership that holds United States trademark registration for MEDICEUTICALS, registered on April 11, 1972 in respect of hair shampoos, with a claim of first use in commerce on September 11, 1969. MLLP acquired this registration by an assignment effective May 28, 2017, recorded in the United States principal trademark register on March 29, 2022. The disputed Domain Name was acquired by the Respondent on May 9, 2011 by a domain names investor, who offers domain names for sale through a marketplace website associated with the domain name <domainmarket.com>.
In October 2024, in response to an expression of interest the broker quoted a six-figure USD price for the disputed Domain Name. The Complainant offered USD $5,000, but the seller maintained a six-figure price. As of July 13, 2025, the domain was listed on DomainMarket.com for USD $594,888. The Complainant alleges that the final asking price (USD $148,000) is still well in excess of out-of-pocket costs necessary to register the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent contends that it acquired the disputed Domain Name because the term “mediceutical” is a natural combination of words (“medicine/medical” and “pharmaceutical”) connected to very large industries with numerous potential uses, not because it had anything to do with the Complainant or any existing brand or product. The Respondent also points out that the United States trademark registration is owned not by the Complainant, but by MLLP, and only since 2022.
Held: In the present case, the Complainant acquired its trademark rights in MEDICEUTICALS in 2022, eleven years after the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name in 2011. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1 and 3.8.2. There is no evidence on the record of prior use of the Complainant’s mark. The position would be the same even if the Panel were to take into account MLLP’s United States trademark registration on the basis of some implied license to the Complainant as a related party. The Complainant also argues that “mediceuticals”, as an invented word, must have been chosen to create an association with itself. However, the Respondent denies any prior knowledge of the Complainant’s existence. It submits that it acquired the disputed Domain Name because the term “mediceutical” is a combination of the prefix “medi” and the suffix “ceutical” and is connected to very large industries with numerous potential uses.
In view of all these circumstances, including the lack of evidence of prior use of the mark, the Panel cannot conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent knew, or should have known, of any rights in a MEDICEUTICALS mark in 2011. The Panel takes note that the Parties unsuccessfully conducted a price negotiation for the disputed Domain Name in 2024 during the course of which the Complainant’s identity was revealed. However, no circumstances have been drawn to the Panel’s attention from which the inference could be drawn that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name 13 years earlier. Moreover, generally speaking, prior UDRP panels have found that the practice as such of registering a domain name for subsequent resale (including for a profit) would not by itself support a claim that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling to a trademark owner (or its competitor). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1.
RDNH: The Respondent submits that the Complaint is an abuse of the UDRP process. It alleges that the Complainant delayed bringing its claim for 15 years, but the Complainant has not shown that it held rights in a relevant trademark until four years ago. In any case, mere delay does not amount to a waiver of rights under the Policy. Further, given the nature of the mark in particular, the lack of sufficient supporting evidence in this case does not imply that the Complaint was brought in bad faith.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Winger Trademarks BV, Belgium
Respondent’s Counsel: Brian H. Leventhal, Attorney at Law, P.C., United States
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This decision is a useful reminder that even a distinctive or coined trademark does not relieve a complainant of its burden to prove targeting. The Panel focused on the central question under the UDRP: whether the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name because of the trademark owner’s rights. On the record before it, the answer was no.
The Panel’s treatment of the trademark evidence is particularly noteworthy. Too often, there is a tendency to assume that because a term is distinctive or invented, anyone who later registers the matching domain name must have had the trademark owner in mind. The Panel rejected that shortcut. Distinctiveness may strengthen a complainant’s case, but it does not eliminate the requirement to prove targeting. Here, there was no evidence that the mark enjoyed such notoriety or market recognition that knowledge could simply be presumed, nor was there any evidence connecting the Respondent to the Complainant, its products, or its business. The Panel therefore refused to convert the absence of an obvious alternative explanation into affirmative proof of targeting. The burden remained on the Complainant to establish why the Respondent likely had the mark in mind, not on the Respondent to prove why it did not.
The Respondent’s explanation for acquiring the domain name was also significant. It argued that “mediceutical” was an attractive blend of medical and pharmaceutical terminology with broad commercial appeal and numerous potential applications. Whether or not that was the only possible explanation, the Panel found it sufficiently plausible in the absence of evidence pointing to the Complainant. As many domain investors have successfully argued, the fact that a term is coined does not automatically establish that it was registered because of a particular trademark owner.
The decision is also notable for its treatment of the parties’ later negotiations. By 2024, the Respondent plainly knew the identity of the Complainant and was seeking a six-figure price for the domain name. The Panel correctly held that this did not establish bad faith. The relevant question was whether the Respondent targeted the Complainant when it acquired the domain name in 2011, not whether it later became aware of a potential buyer. As the Panel observed, the business of acquiring domain names for resale, including at a substantial profit, is not inherently abusive and does not by itself demonstrate bad-faith registration.
Although the Complaint was denied, the Panel declined to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Nevertheless, the decision reinforces an important principle in cases involving domain investors: trademark rights, even in a distinctive mark, combined with a high asking price, are not enough. Without evidence that the respondent targeted the complainant or its mark at the time of acquisition, the UDRP provides no remedy.
Direct Evidence of Targeting Through Website Content
Roots Corporation v. Jun Chen, NAF Claim Number: FA2605002219195
<canada-roots.com>
Panelist: Mr. Héctor Ariel Manoff
Brief Facts: The Complainant is a leading company established in 1973 which designs, markets and sells a broad selection of products and owns trademark registrations for ROOTS and ROOTS CANADA as from 1994. The Complainant also operates the domain name <roots.com>, which is used in connection with the advertising and sale of its products. The Complainant owns trademark rights in ROOTS, ROOTS CANADA and some designs, since 1994. The disputed Domain Name was registered in November 2025 and it resolves to a website that impersonates the Complainant by using an identical logo. The Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Held: According to the evidence submitted, the Respondent’s use of the disputed Domain Name is not a bona fide offering of goods. The website includes Complainant’s trademark, design and products. This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed Domain Name is to try to show that the disputed Domain Name is associated with the Complainant and that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate non-commercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Further, in the Panel’s point of view the cited facts, which were neither responded nor refuted by the Respondent, are sufficient evidence to support that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.
As regards the use of the disputed Domain Name, this Panel also finds that it was done in bad faith. The Complainant has submitted evidence to prove that the domain name was used to impersonate the Complainant by using an identical logo. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has the intention of creating an association with the Complainant and its services. This Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that the Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that the Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that the Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Transfer
Complainant’s Counsel: Gina Carrillo of Corsearch, Inc., USA
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
The most noteworthy aspect of this decision is the quality of the evidence. Many UDRP cases require panels to infer targeting from the domain name itself, surrounding circumstances, or patterns of conduct. Here, the Respondent’s website provided direct evidence of targeting. By reproducing the Complainant’s logo, branding, and products, the Respondent effectively removed any doubt as to whose goodwill it was seeking to exploit.
The decision highlights the evidentiary significance of website content in UDRP proceedings. Panels are often required to assess competing explanations for a domain name registration. In this case, the content of the website itself supplied the answer. The use of ROOTS branding and imagery made it difficult to characterize the registration as anything other than an attempt to create an association with the Complainant.
The case also demonstrates why screenshots and website captures remain among the most persuasive forms of evidence in UDRP proceedings. While confusing similarity alone rarely determines the outcome, a website that adopts the complainant’s branding can provide compelling evidence of both the absence of legitimate interests and bad-faith targeting.
Who Bears the Burden When Ownership Is Unclear?
Complex Contents Ltd. v. Jun Hiyama, SAKURA internet Inc., WIPO Case No. D2026-1592
<sankaku.net>
Panelist: Mr. Douglas Clark
Brief Facts: The Bulgarian Complainant operates an online platform under the name SANKAKU providing, among other things, digital content, community features, and related services. The Complainant is the owner of the SANKAKU trademark in the United States, registered on December 2, 2025 but claims continuous use since at least 2008. However, the Articles of Association submitted by the Complainant are dated 2020. The disputed Domain Name was registered on July 9, 2015, by an individual located in Osaka, Japan. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name, or was first disclosed as its registrant, in 2023. Searches of the Wayback Machine indicate that, between 2015 and 2016, the disputed Domain Name was used by the Japanese company Sanbariki Co. Ltd. to promote the sale of camping equipment, after which it resolved to a parking page for several years.
After the Complaint was filed, the disputed Domain Name began resolving to the same website it had resolved to in 2016 for Sanbariki Co. Ltd., with website content dated 2016. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith, including on the basis of its prolonged passive holding and lack of any legitimate use and that the Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring the disputed Domain Name, when the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights. The Respondent contends that the term “sankaku” is a common romanization of the Japanese word “三角” meaning “triangle” and its use of the term was based on its ordinary Japanese meaning and in relation to the sale of outdoor and climbing-related products and tent products.
Held: It is unclear to the Panel as to when the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name. On one version of events, the current direction to prior web content would support a case that the Respondent was the original registrant in 2015 (in which case the lack of awareness of the Complainant, and use for outdoor products even more strongly supports the Respondent’s case). However, a second possible version is that the Respondent only more recently became the registrant and somehow copied the 2015 content to give his registration cover. This is implicitly argued by the Complainant based on the Respondent’s failure to show evidence of an unbroken chain of control. However, the ultimate burden falls to the Complainant. Although the Complainant alleges, based on an analysis of Whois searches, that the Respondent only became the registrant in 2023, it has not provided the underlying searches on which that allegation rests.
It is common ground between the Parties that “Sankaku” means triangle in Japanese. The Panel does not consider on the facts of this case that the mere passive holding of the dictionary word “sankaku” can support an allegation of registration and use in bad faith. “Sankaku” means “triangle” in Japanese. There is no evidence that the Complainant is so well known that use by anyone else of “sankaku” would create some link in a consumer’s mind with the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant only relies on a United States registered trademark and not on any Japanese registration. Further the Complainant’s claimed use since 2008 cannot be made out from the evidence on the record. The Complainant’s own evidence is that it was incorporated in 2020. There is no evidence that it acquired goodwill in the name from another entity.
The record does not establish that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant or its mark at the time the disputed Domain Name was registered, whether in 2015 or 2023, nor does it establish that the Respondent sought to take advantage of any such rights. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2. The Complainant also alleges in this respect that product packaging of the Respondent refers to a domain name and that this undermines its case; while it is indeed a different domain name, it also shows use of the same term (sankaku) in the same descriptive or suggestive manner. The Panel finds that the Respondent did not register and has not used the disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Sigma Law Group LLC, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
The most interesting aspect of this decision is that the Panel was unable to determine with confidence when the Respondent actually became the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argued that the Respondent only acquired the domain name in 2023, while the Respondent maintained that it had owned the domain name since 2015. The evidence pointed in both directions. On the one hand, the disputed domain name had historically been used in connection with a camping products business and later resolved to a parking page. On the other hand, after the Complaint was filed, the website suddenly reverted to the same content that had appeared years earlier, raising questions about whether the historical use genuinely reflected an unbroken chain of ownership.
Rather than speculate, the Panel focused on a fundamental procedural principle: the burden of proof rests with the Complainant. Even if there were reasons to question the Respondent’s narrative, the Complainant failed to produce the underlying Whois evidence on which it based its assertion that the Respondent only became the registrant in 2023. The Panel therefore declined to fill the evidentiary gap with assumptions. The decision serves as a useful reminder that raising doubts about a respondent’s version of events is not enough; a complainant must still prove its own case with evidence.
The dictionary meaning of the disputed term provided an additional obstacle. It was undisputed that “sankaku” means “triangle” in Japanese. The Panel was unwilling to infer targeting from the registration or passive holding of a common Japanese word, particularly where there was no evidence that the Complainant had achieved such notoriety that use of the term would naturally call the Complainant to mind. The weakness of the Complainant’s evidence concerning its own claimed rights compounded the problem. While the Complainant asserted use dating back to 2008, its own incorporation documents dated from 2020 and there was no evidence explaining how any earlier goodwill had been acquired.
Criticism Sites Are Not Cybersquatting
Xiamen Hithium Energy Storage Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ashok Ramesh, WIPO Case No. D2026-2234
<reliancehithiumleaks.com>
Panelist: Mr. Jeremy Speres
Brief Facts: Little information is supplied in the Complaint concerning the Complainant’s business, other than to state that the Complainant operates in the energy storage battery industry under the HITHIUM mark. The Complainant’s mark is the subject of the following registrations, amongst others: Chinese trademark HITHIUM (word), having a registration date of March 7, 2021; and International trademark HiTHIUM (stylised), having a registration date of June 28, 2022, designating, amongst others, India. The disputed Domain Name was registered on August 12, 2025, and presently resolves to a website entitled “RelianceHithiumLeaks” featuring criticism of a proposed partnership between the Complainant and the Indian business Reliance Industries. The following statement is representative of the nature of the rest of the content on the website: “Hithium is planning on using Reliance Industries as a trojan horse to destroy India’s economic competitiveness and make India dependent on Chinese Technology.” The Complainant alleges that the disputed Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith in order to deliberately mislead users and disparage the Complainant.
Held: As set out in the WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.6.3, if the domain name consists of the mark plus a derogatory term (e.g., <trademarksucks.tld>), UDRP panels tend to find that the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if such use is prima facie noncommercial, genuinely fair, and not misleading or false. Here, the disputed Domain Name includes the term “leaks”, which the Complainant itself states “carries an unmistakably negative and damaging connotation”. As such, that term operates in a conceptually similar way to “sucks” and will operate to distinguish the disputed Domain Name from any official presence of the Complainant in the minds of users, who are unlikely to believe that the Complainant would, of its own accord, register a domain name incorporating a term that suggests something negative about its brand. The composition of the disputed Domain Name including this term thus does not prima facie create an impermissible risk of confusion and is likely to signal to Internet users that the disputed Domain Name is associated with criticism or commentary concerning the Complainant.
While the Complainant claims that the content on the disputed Domain Name’s website shows the Respondent’s bad faith and intent to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark, there is nothing on the face of the disputed Domain Name’s website or in the record indicating clearly that the Respondent’s motivation behind the criticism is not genuine. Thus, establishing whether or not the Complainant is correct in this regard would necessarily involve the Panel considering, in detail, the veracity of the material featured on the disputed Domain Name’s website. Assessing whether or not the Respondent’s criticism of the Complainant has any merit or is defamatory is beyond the scope of a cybersquatting enquiry under the Policy, and this is best left to the courts. As far as the Panel can tell, the Respondent’s website is non-commercial. There are no advertisements, no promotion of any business activities of any party, there is no evidence that the Respondent is a competitor of the Complainant, nor is there any other evidence that the Respondent has operated this website for any commercial purpose or to take an unfair advantage of the Complainant. There are also no indicia of tarnishment or cybersquatting.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Will Chen, China
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
The Panel deserves considerable credit for maintaining the distinction between cybersquatting and criticism. Faced with a website containing highly inflammatory allegations about the Complainant and its proposed business activities in India, the Panel resisted the temptation to treat offensive or potentially defamatory speech as evidence of bad-faith registration under the UDRP. As noted in UDRPPerspectives at 2.10, UDRP panels should not evaluate the nature of criticism, whether it is correct or incorrect, whether it is defamatory, or whether it is reasonable or outrageous. Rather, panels should determine whether the domain name was registered and used as a mere sham or pretext, rather than as a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.
The most significant aspect of the decision is the Panel’s careful application of section 2.6.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, which recognizes that a respondent may have a legitimate interest in a domain name used for a genuine, noncommercial criticism site, particularly where the domain name itself signals criticism rather than sponsorship. The Panel correctly viewed the term “leaks” as functioning much like the more familiar “sucks” formulation found in many criticism-site cases. Rather than suggesting affiliation with the trademark owner, the term signals criticism, controversy, or commentary. As the Panel observed, Internet users are unlikely to believe that a company would voluntarily register a domain name suggesting damaging revelations about itself. The Panel’s analysis faithfully applied the consensus approach reflected in the Overview rather than treating any use of a trademark in a domain name as inherently suspect.
Equally important was the Panel’s refusal to become a tribunal for determining truth or falsity. The Complainant’s case effectively invited the Panel to conclude that the allegations appearing on the website were false, misleading, defamatory, or otherwise illegitimate. The Panel correctly recognized that such an inquiry falls outside the limited scope of the UDRP. The Policy was created to address abusive domain name registrations, not to adjudicate disputes over the accuracy of political, commercial, consumer, or public-interest criticism.
To determine whether the Respondent’s allegations were true or false would have required the Panel to assess evidence, credibility, motive, context, and potentially complex factual issues concerning the Complainant’s business activities and proposed relationship with Reliance Industries. Those are precisely the types of disputes that courts are equipped to resolve through discovery, witness testimony, and the application of substantive law. UDRP panels, by contrast, operate on a limited written record and are tasked with deciding whether a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, not whether the opinions expressed on a website are correct.
The distinction is an important one. A criticism website does not lose protection under the UDRP merely because the trademark owner considers the criticism unfair, inaccurate, exaggerated, or even defamatory. The relevant inquiry is whether the domain name is being used as a genuine vehicle for commentary or criticism, or whether criticism is merely a pretext for commercial exploitation, impersonation, extortion, or some other form of abusive conduct. Here, the Panel found no evidence of any such ulterior motive.
The Panel also examined the actual use of the website rather than simply reacting to its tone. There were no advertisements, no competing commercial activities, no apparent attempt to monetize traffic, and no evidence that the Respondent was seeking any commercial advantage from use of the Complainant’s mark. In the absence of such evidence, the Panel was unwilling to infer bad faith merely because the criticism was harsh.
The decision is particularly noteworthy because the Respondent did not file a Response. Even in a default case, the Panel carefully applied the principles reflected in the WIPO Overview and independently assessed whether the record established cybersquatting. It did not. The result is an excellent example of a panel adhering to the limited purpose of the UDRP and refusing to allow trademark rights to be used as a substitute for defamation or speech-related claims better suited for the courts.
Disclaimer: The facts are taken from the decisions themselves and have not been independently verified. The editors and publishers accept no responsibility for their accuracy.
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.