Panel: “Sloppy, Incomplete” Complaint “Overstates” Complainant’s Case
We are clearly at the point where Panels will not tolerate sloppy and incomplete pleadings. As noted by the Panel, “the Factual Background section of the Complaint comprises two paragraphs” [and] the Bad Faith section does not address the obvious difficulty that the disputed Domain Name was registered decades before the Complainant or its claimed mark existed.” Such pleadings are filed all too often and it is gratifying to see a Panel take the appropriately tough line on such inexcusable pleadings. 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. 5.51) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):
‣ Panel: “Sloppy, Incomplete” Complaint “Overstates” Complainant’s Case (propelpro .com *with commentary)
‣ Siemens’ Trademark Strength vs. Dictionary Word Issue (siemens .app *with commentary)
‣ No Evidence Respondent Registered Domain in Anticipation of Complainant’s Trademark Rights (insurafy .com *with commentary)
‣ Complainant’s Breach of Certification for Citation of Non‑Existent Cases (adviceonly .com *with commentary)
‣ WIPO Database disclosed “Over 200 registrations mostly with no apparent connection to the Complainant” (baik .com *with commentary)
‣ Panel Finds Respondent’s Selection of Domain Based on Module Name, Claiming No Knowledge of Complainant, Plausible (powerplan .ai)
Panel: “Sloppy, Incomplete” Complaint “Overstates” Complainant’s Case
Propel Pro v. IT Admin, Educate 360, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2025-4499
<propelpro .com>
Panelist: Mr. W. Scott Blackmer
Brief Facts: The Complainant, incorporated on July 8, 2024, with a principal place of business in New York, “is in the business of providing an online service connecting athletes of all skill levels to elite, world class coaches to help them improve their skills in a variety of sports.”. The Panel notes that the disputed Domain Name used for the Complainant’s website <propelpros .com> was registered on January 25, 2024, but the site appears to be still under development. The Complainant does not claim to have a registered trademark but applied to the USPTO on June 30, 2025, to register PROPELPRO and on August 19, 2025 to register the figurative mark P PROPELPRO on an “intent to use” basis.
The disputed Domain Name was created on October 26, 2014, and is registered to the Respondent with an address in Providence, Massachusetts, US. The Panel notes that the relevant online database of the Massachusetts Secretary of State shows that Educate 360, LLC is registered as a foreign limited liability company since December 17, 2015, to engage in the business of providing “training in the field of project management”. The disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website but the Panel notes that the disputed Domain Name has, over the years, has resolved to landing pages listing it for sale.
The Complainant asserts that it has been using its PROPEL PRO marks “since its inception” and suggests that it has “common- law, use based trademark rights… due to its multi-year usage and marketing of the PROPEL PRO Marks for its virtual coaching platform.” The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent “is using the disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the domain, disrupting Complainant’s business and/or for the purpose of intentionally attempting to attract internet users to Respondent’s inactive website by creating a likelihood of confusion…”. The Respondent did not file a response.
Held: The Complainant does not have a registered trademark, and the UDRP Complaint cannot be grounded on pending applications for registration. The Complainant claims common law rights in PROPEL PRO marks, but the Panel does not find that the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. The Complainant offers very little to support its claims of “multi-year usage and marketing”. The Complainant was formed in July 2024. Its trademark applications (June and August 2024) were filed on an “intent to use” basis. There is no evidence of an active website until March 2025; the site still appears incomplete with “Kickoff Is Near”/”Coming Soon” messages. The Complainant simply does not offer proof indicating that its mark is well known by a substantial number of consumers and distinctively associated with the Complainant.
The Panel further notes that the disputed Domain Name was created on October 26, 2014, and the Respondent was formed on December 17, 2015. The Complainant provides a registration history with registrant names redacted, so the exact acquisition date by the Respondent is unclear; the Complainant does not allege any ownership change after its claimed trademark rights. As noted above, the Wayback Machine does not show that the disputed Domain Name has been used for an active website by the Respondent or any other party since 2014. But given that the Complainant did not exist until 2024, does not have a registered trademark, and has not established a record demonstrating common law trademark rights even today, it is difficult to conceive how the Respondent could have registered the disputed Domain Name in a bad-faith effort to exploit the Complainant’s reputation.
RDNH: The Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Complaint is grounded on claimed common-law marks based on “multi-year use” in an online business that appears actually to have been in operation (incompletely) for a few months, in an effort to obtain a disputed Domain Name that was registered 11 years ago. The Factual Background section of the Complaint comprises two paragraphs. The Bad Faith section does not address the obvious difficulty that the disputed Domain Name was registered decades before the Complainant or its claimed mark existed.
After the Registrar furnished the name of the underlying registrant, the Complainant amended the Complainant only to change the name of the Respondent in the caption, still referring to the Respondent in the text as “Unknown” and not bothering to check whether it was an entity that could have registered the disputed Domain Name at or near the time of the 2014 registration date furnished by the Registrar. The Complaint also mistakenly refers to “captures after September 2008” showing a lack of due diligence in preparation.
The Complaint, filed by experienced intellectual property counsel, was an inexplicably sloppy and incomplete pleading that wildly overstated the Complainant’s case and ignored fundamental deficiencies in the Complainant’s claims under the first and third elements.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: We are clearly at the point where Panels will not tolerate sloppy and incomplete pleadings. As noted by the Panel, “the Factual Background section of the Complaint comprises two paragraphs” [and] the Bad Faith section does not address the obvious difficulty that the disputed Domain Name was registered decades before the Complainant or its claimed mark existed.” Such pleadings are filed all too often and it is gratifying to see a Panel take the appropriately tough line on such inexcusable pleadings.
‘Siemens’ Trademark Strength vs. Dictionary Word Issue
Siemens Trademark GmbH & Co. KG v. mehmet sahin, CAC Case No. CAC-UDRP-108086
<siemens .app>
Panelist: Mr. Douglas Isenberg
Brief Facts: The Complainant is a subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Founded more than 175 years ago and headquartered in Berlin and Munich, Siemens Aktiengesellschaft is the ultimate parent company of the Siemens Group, which is active in fields such as automation and control, power, transportation, logistics, information and communications, and medical technology. The group employs more than 310,000 people worldwide and reported a turnover of €75.9 billion in 2024. The disputed Domain Name was created on October 21, 2025. A screenshot of the website associated with the disputed Domain Name provided by the Complainant states that the disputed Domain Name is for sale at a “Buy Now” price of 5,738.40 euros. The website also states, among other things, “SIEMENS is a GENERIC WORD about electricity, and a German last name.”
The Complainant alleges that “[i]n view of the long and extensive use of the mark ‘SIEMENS’ throughout the world, it is obvious that the Respondent is well aware of the existence of this mark. The disputed Domain Name is parked and offered for sale at the price of 5,738.40 EUR, and that the Respondent has not used and is not currently using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent contends that the Siemens is a fully generic word namely a “Last Name and a Physics term, namely 1 siemens= 1/Ohm= 1 Ampere/1 Volt= Coloumb square x Second / Meter square x kilogram AND THIS IS ENOUGH FOR DEFENSE, unless there is a bad faith. There is no bad-faith because there is no hint that this domain was registered or used in bad faith. Trying to sell generic domains is completely ok, even if there is a trademark”…
Held: This is an unusual and challenging case. On the one hand, the strength of the SIEMENS Trademark is clear. On the other hand, as the Respondent has noted, “siemens” is a dictionary word. According to the Merriam-Webster website, it means “a unit of conductance in the meter-kilogram-second system equivalent to one ampere per volt,” that is, the SIEMENS Trademark is not a fanciful trademark. The Complainant’s arguments with respect to bad faith rely largely, though perhaps not explicitly, on the doctrine of passive holding. This doctrine first set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and is described in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3. While it is clear that the SIEMENS Trademark is distinctive and enjoys a strong reputation, this alone is insufficient to find bad faith, given the dictionary meaning of the word “siemens,” even if it is well-known as such.
Indeed, numerous previous panels under the Policy have refused to find bad faith based solely on the fact that a disputed Domain Name contains a well-known trademark that is not fanciful. For example, Arm Limited v. 卢春琳 (Chun Lin Lu), WIPO Case No. D2021-0970: “Having reviewed the substance of the Respondent’s email communications, there is no indicia to suggest that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its ARM trade mark and specifically targeted them….”; and Sage Global Services Limited v. Narendra Ghimire, Deep Vision Architects, WIPO Case No. DAI2023-0010: “Even if the Respondent had been aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights, this knowledge would not have necessarily prevented the Respondent from acquiring the disputed Domain Name in good faith for its common meaning, so long as the disputed Domain Name is not used by the Respondent in a manner that infringes upon the Complainant’s trademark rights.”
The Panel acknowledges that all of the decisions cited above can, in some ways, be distinguished from the current proceeding. However, the prevailing theme is that registration of a domain name containing a complainant’s well-known trademark is not, by itself, sufficient to establish bad faith where the trademark is also a dictionary word. Finally, with respect to two additional issues raised by the Complainant: First, the use of a privacy service, the Panel acknowledges that domain name registrations today are commonly protected by such services and, therefore, the Panel is unwilling to find bad faith based on the use of such a service. Second, disputed Domain Name offered for sale, it is unclear whether Respondent’s primary purpose in registering the disputed Domain Name was to sell it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant, as is required by paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, especially given the dictionary meaning of the word “siemens.”
To be clear: The Panel is sympathetic to Complainant’s assertion that Respondent’s references to “siemens” as something (other than the SIEMENS trademark) are “merely pretextual use to avoid being accused of bad faith in UDRP proceedings.” However, the nature of UDRP proceedings, without discovery, testimony or trials, sometimes makes it impossible to determine all of the relevant facts and motivations. In this case, real questions remain that prevent the Panel, however suspicious, from finding bad faith at this time. The Panel notes that a proceeding in court might be able to properly explore these questions. The Panel also notes that, under appropriate circumstances, a complainant may refile a UDRP complaint, such as “when the complainant establishes that legally relevant developments have occurred since the original UDRP decision” or “where new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case is presented.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.18.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Internally Represented
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: This is a remarkable demonstration of a Panel’s self-restraint. As the Panel noted:
“The Panel is sympathetic to Complainant’s assertion that Respondent’s references to “siemens” as something (other than the SIEMENS trademark) are “merely pretextual use to avoid being accused of bad faith in UDRP proceedings.” However, the nature of UDRP proceedings, without discovery, testimony or trials, sometimes makes it impossible to determine all of the relevant facts and motivations. In this case, real questions remain that prevent the Panel, however suspicious, from finding bad faith at this time. The Panel notes that a proceeding in court might be able to properly explore these questions.”
Other Panelists may have gone with their gut despite the absence of evidence of bad faith and rejected the defense as merely pretextual given the fame of the Complainant’s mark. But this Panelist, to his credit, did not take the “easy” way out and instead made his decision based upon the available evidence, which he found wanting and therefore deferred to the courts where a case like this can be properly determined.
No Evidence Respondent Registered Domain in Anticipation of Complainant’s Trademark Rights
Insurify, Inc. v. Clifford Grekin, WIPO Case No. D2025-3986
<insurafy .com>
Panelist: Ms. Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa
Brief Facts: The Complainant operates an online insurance comparison engine under the INSURIFY mark. It owns US registration for INSURIFY (word mark), registered on October 29, 2019, claiming a date of first use of January 28, 2016. The Complainant states that it has offered its services since 2013. The record contains evidence that the Complainant incorporated as Ensurify, Inc. on February 20, 2015. The Complainant has registered and uses the domain name <insurify .com> for its primary business website. The disputed Domain Name was registered on July 27, 2015 and resolves to a website purporting to offer insurance services to businesses and the self-employed.
The Complainant claims to have invested significant sums and efforts in promoting its distinctive INSURIFY mark and alleges that the disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s mark by only one letter. The Respondent has no rights in the INSURIFY mark, and was put on notice of the Complainant’s rights through the Complainant’s offer to purchase the disputed Domain Name, which the Respondent rejected. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights and is using it to deceive Internet users by attracting them to its website. The Respondent did not file a response.
Procedural Order: On November 21, 2025, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1, inviting the Complainant to provide evidence of its use of, or rights, in, the INSURIFY mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant provided its response on November 26, 2025. The Respondent was invited to comment by December 1, 2025, but did not do so.
Held: The Panel notes that the disputed Domain Name was registered in the year preceding the Complainant’s United States trademark filing, and several years before the INSURIFY mark was registered. The date of first use attested to in the Complainant’s United States Trademark Registration for the INSURIFY mark is January 28, 2016, post-dating the registration of the disputed Domain Name on July 27, 2015. The Complaint states that the Complainant launched the INSURIFY platform in 2013, yet the record indicates that the platform was originally operating as “Ensurify .com”. Indeed, the Complainant offers evidence that it incorporated an entity called Ensurify, Inc. in February 2015. No evidence is available to support the Complainant’s assertion of rights in the INSURIFY mark preceding the registration of the disputed Domain Name in July 2015.
The Panel notes that the publicly available information indicates a multiplicity of domain names containing some variant of the element “insure,” along with the prevalence of the element “ify”, preventing the Panel from extending the Complainant’s rights in its ENSURIFY and later INSURIFY marks to the disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed Domain Name in bad faith targeting of the Complainant or its trademark rights because the Complainant had no relevant trademark rights when the Domain Name was registered. While the record establishes that the Complainant had launched an online insurance service at that time, there is no evidence available to indicate that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in anticipation of the Complainant’s trademark rights.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Law Office of C. Allen Bargfrede, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Here, the Panel correctly focused on the material time period, i.e. the date of Domain Name registration, and found that the Complainant had not provided evidence of reputation as of the material time period. This is a common weakness found in Complaints and the Panel did well to identify it and to appropriately address it. Well done.
Complainant’s Breach of Certification for Citation of Non‑Existent Cases
Quincy Hall / Advice Only v. Steven Fox / Advice Only, NAF Claim Number: FA2511002186579
<adviceonly .com>
Panelist: Mr. Eugene I. Low
Brief Facts: The Complainant relies on the U.S. trademark registration for “ADVICE-ONLY” in supplemental register, dated March 3, 2020 (first use: March 1, 2019). The USPTO record indicates owner as Hall Financial Services, Inc. (d/b/a Advice Only). The Complainant argues that the domain was controlled by industry insiders tied to the Transparent Advisor Movement and later acquired by the Respondent with actual or imputed knowledge of Complainant’s rights (citing a 2020 broker email and the transfer from a TAM member). The Complainant alleges that the Respondent re-used an existing “Coming Soon” placeholder, formed a Public Benefit Corporation and launched a site and branded assets that copy or duplicate the Complainant’s services and goodwill, recruited educators and used a commercial learning platform, and made misleading statements implying primacy. The Complainant further points to third‑party takedowns (LinkedIn, Alignable), branding similarities, preparatory educational activity, and admissions by the Respondent as evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the domain in bad faith to misappropriate Complainant’s goodwill.
The Respondent contends Complainant lacks enforceable rights and that the Respondent has legitimate interests and used the domain in good faith. The Respondent also points out that the mark is only on the Supplemental Register and that the USPTO repeatedly rejected prior applications as generic or merely descriptive, so the Complainant has not shown secondary meaning. The Respondent notes the domain was originally registered in 2004, long before the Complainant’s rights, and says it lawfully acquired the name from a third party and used it for a bona fide business, Advice Only, PBC, providing “advice‑only” financial planning under RIA registrations, onboarding advisors, serving clients, and operating internal advisor communities. The Respondent disputes Complainant’s factual assertions (e.g., about takedowns, a “Transparent Advisor Movement,” and copying), denies bad‑faith intent to profit from or disrupt the Complainant, and asks the panel to reject the complaint and find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Held: It is unclear whether the correct Complainant(s) has been named. This Complaint names “Quincy Hall / Advice Only,” not “Hall Financial Services, Inc.,” owner of U.S. trademark Reg. No. 6004380, which is the primary basis of the claimed rights. Even if Quincy Hall is authorized or licensed, the Complaint still fails to establish the first element under the Policy on a more substantive aspect. The general principle is that a trademark registration on the USPTO Supplemental Register, by itself, is not sufficient to establish the required trademark rights under the first element of the Policy. Moreover, the Complainant’s evidence of use falls far short of showing that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning for the purposes of satisfying the first element under the Policy. In support of its claim that it has used the ADVICE-ONLY mark continuously since 2019 in connection with educational and financial-planning services. However, based on the adduced materials, the Panel is unable to discern the relevant dates of use, or the extent and history of use of the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel has not been provided with other evidence which is normally expected for proving acquired distinctiveness, e.g. evidence of independent media coverage. The more descriptive the mark is, the higher the evidential threshold is for proving acquired distinctiveness, which is the case here. The Complainant plainly fails to meet this threshold as well. The Respondent adduces two pieces of evidence showing that the Complainant attempted to register ADVICE-ONLY and ADVICE ONLY with the USPTO for “financial planning and investment advisory services” in Class 36, both applications were refused in 2021 and 2024 as descriptive or generic. Although those refusals were in Class 36 and the Complainant’s registration is in Class 41, the services are similar, so the refusals are useful indicators of the mark’s lack of distinctiveness. In both refusals, USPTO cited many examples of descriptive/generic use of ADVICE-ONLY/ADVICE ONLY; those refusals should have alerted the Complainant that the mark is inherently indistinctive and that a high evidential threshold must be met to prove acquired distinctiveness.
RDNH: The Complainant should have been aware of the inherent indistinctiveness of the mark and that the evidence adduced falls far short of meeting the evidential threshold of proving acquired distinctiveness. In other words, the Complainant should have known that this Complaint could not have reasonably succeeded based on the submitted evidence. The Panel is extremely troubled by the case citations in Complainant’s submission. The Panel finds that most if not all of Complainant’s case citations are completely off the mark, for example: Complainant’s contentions: “Although the U.S. registration (No. 6004380) appears on the Supplemental Register, panels have consistently held that supplemental registrations and descriptive marks may establish rights once secondary meaning is proven. See Platterz Inc. v. Melcher, NAF FA1705001729887; Yahoo! Inc. v. Yahoo-Asian Co., WIPO D2001-0051; WIPO Overview 3.0 §§ 1.2–1.3”
The Panel’s observations: those two cases do not touch on supplemental registrations at all. While the Platterz Inc. case did at least touch on the secondary meaning of the mark, the Yahoo! Inc. case did not touch any such issue at all. Whether or not the Complainant did this deliberately, the Panel finds these “case citations” misleading. The Panel shares the observations in a recent decision (WIPO Case No. D2025-4174), in which the learned panelist found RDNH for, inter alia, the citation of non-existent cases by the Complainant. While a panel may be prepared to condone occasional mistakes/misquotations, the extent of mistakes/misquotations by Complainant as demonstrated above is unacceptable. Complainant has breached its certification as to the completeness and accuracy of the Complaint.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Internally Represented
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: This case is particularly worth reading in detail for the excellent analysis and treatment given by the Panelist. There is much that is noteworthy in the decision, but I particularly appreciated the Panel’s recognition that “the more descriptive the mark is, the higher the evidential threshold is for proving acquired distinctiveness, which is the case here”. Of course, the Panel’s rejection of trademark rights based solely on the US Supplemental Registrar is spot on and a good reminder to non-US Panelists to pay particular attention to the type of registrar that the mark is registered on.
This case is also emblematic of the increasingly severe and common problem of apparent use of unchecked AI in pleadings. Not only are hallucinations possible as here, but the use of AI creates an easy opportunity to file a lengthy pleading with little effort, but often requires a full and time consuming effort by the responding party.
WIPO Database disclosed “Over 200 registrations mostly with no apparent connection to the Complainant”
El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A. v. twb twb, WIPO Case No. D2025-4492
<baik .com>
Panelist: Mr. Steven A. Maier
Brief Facts: The Complainant, registered in Luxembourg, is the operator of a fast-food chain which was founded in Saudi Arabia in 1974. The Complainant operates at <albaik .com> and trades principally under the names and trademarks AL BAIK and EL BAIK. It owns various trademarks, including the figurative mark EL BAIK, registered in the EU (1999); AL BAIK, registered in Indonesia (2009); and BAIK, registered in Saudi Arabia (2010). The disputed Domain Name was first registered on November 29, 1999, and its WHOIS indicates that it was last updated on May 15, 2025. The disputed Domain Name has been resolved to a landing page indicating that it is for sale and invites enquiries.
The Panel asserts that its trademark AL BAIK was recognized as having attained the status of a “famous” trademark by a panel, citing WIPO Panel Decision D2007-1421. It alleges that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed Domain Name, without any legitimate affiliation, constitutes evidence of bad-faith registration and use. The Complainant adds that the Respondent has not used the disputed Domain Name for the purposes of any website, and that its value for sale can only be based on taking advantage of web traffic generated by the Complainant’s reputation. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Held: In the view of the Panel, the Complainant has failed to establish registration of the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The first issue is the date of the Respondent’s registration or acquisition of the disputed Domain Name. The Complainant correctly notes it was first registered on November 29, 1999, and that the WhoIs record was last updated on May 15, 2025. However, the Complainant provides no further information or reason for the Panel to conclude the Respondent was not the original registrant. Secondly, the Panel doubts the Complainant’s claim that AL BAIK was previously found “famous” under the UDRP. The cited Egyptianit Eit panel only said the Complainant argued its mark was well-known in the Middle East and that it was reasonable to infer the mark was well-known where the Complainant does business, statements that do not amount to a finding of fame. Moreover, in that case the domain had been used for a website offering competing services while using the Complainant’s device mark, so the facts are not similar.
Thirdly, the Panel does not accept the Complainant’s contention that there is no material distinction between the trademarks AL BAIK, EL BAIK, and BAIK, because the Complainant offers no evidence of trading under the specific mark BAIK. Additionally, the Panel undertook limited factual research: a Google search for “baik” returned numerous results unrelated to the Complainant, and the WIPO Global Brands Database disclosed current Indonesia and France registrations for BAIK and over 200 registrations including “baik” in various jurisdictions, mostly with no apparent connection to the Complainant. Finally, the Panel also had regard to the criteria in section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 for assessing bad faith in cases of “passive holding.” In summary, the Complainant has not persuaded the Panel, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent registered and used the disputed Domain Name with the Complainant’s BAIK, AL BAIK or EL BAIK trademarks in mind, or with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the goodwill attaching to them.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Aronova S.A., Luxembourg
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Kudos to the Panel for reaching into the facts and identifying the material third party trademark evidence from the WIPO Global Brand Database. I am often leery of Panels engaging in any kind of independent research, but examples such as this show its utility in the appropriate circumstances.
Panel Finds Respondent’s Selection of Domain Based on Module Name, Claiming No Knowledge of Complainant, Plausible
PowerPlan, Inc. v. Dan Moorehead / Power Web5, NAF Claim Number: FA2510002186206
<powerplan .ai>
Panelist: Mr. David E. Sorkin
Brief Facts: The Complainant is a provider of financial and investment planning and analysis software and related services, including software that leverages AI capabilities. The Complainant states that it has been the subject of “widespread unsolicited media coverage,” substantiating this assertion with copies of two articles from 2018 and one from 2025. Complainant has used the POWERPLAN mark since at least as early as February 2012 and owns a longstanding United States trademark registration for POWERPLAN in standard character form. The disputed domain name <powerplan .ai> was registered in November 2022. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is being used for “a website that offers services and goods highly related to Complainant’s financial and investment software services and related goods and services, and is directly within the industry in which Complainant operates.”
The Complainant states that it sent cease and desist letters to Respondent in July and September, demanding that the Respondent cease use of the POWERPLAN mark and the disputed domain name, but did not receive a response. The Respondent contends that it has offered a low-code AI-assisted application development platform under the Power Web5 AI brand since at least 2022 and that the disputed domain name is not being used for a standalone website; instead, it redirects users to a page on Respondent’s primary website at <powerweb5 .ai>. The Respondent further contends that its offerings distinguish from those of Complainant, describing its platform as “broad AI/low-code,” while Complainant offers what Respondent describes as “niche utility fixed‑asset planning/accounting software for power/utility companies.” Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
Preliminary Issue: Deficient Response: The Response was submitted after the twice-extended deadline. However, Respondent is self-represented; the Response appears to be otherwise compliant with the Rules, apart from its untimeliness; it was received before the matter was referred to the Panel; and Complainant does not appear to have been prejudiced by the untimely submission. The Panel therefore exercises its discretion to accept and consider the deficient Response.
Held: The Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, in terms of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. To have registered a domain name in bad faith, Respondent must have been aware of Complainant or its mark when registering the domain name, and the registration must in some way have been targeted at Complainant or its mark. See e.g., Tarot Tap, Inc. v. Zaichen Huang, FA 2186386 (Forum Dec. 12, 2025).
The Respondent claims to have selected the disputed domain name because it corresponds to the name of a module within Respondent’s application development platform, and to have been unaware of Complainant at that time. The Panel considers these claims to be both plausible and consistent with the evidence before the Panel. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
RDNH: The Respondent has requested a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. The Panel declines to make such a finding.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Meghan C. Killian of Duane Morris, LLP, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
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.