Parties Are Free to Represent Themselves But Must Bear the Consequences
iguide .com is a well-reasoned decision from Panelist Ivett Paulovics that methodically applies foundational UDRP principles – particularly with respect to passive holding, temporal priority, and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”). The analysis is careful, structured, and entirely consistent with established jurisprudence. 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.
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. 6.7) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):
‣ Parties Are Free to Represent Themselves but Must Bear the Consequences (iguide .com *with commentary)
‣ Descriptive Domain Name; Complainant’s Alleged Notoriety Not Proven at Time of Registration (fitactive .com *with commentary)
‣ Panel Rejects Respondent’s Redaction Request (redmountain .com *with commentary)
‣ Panel Finds This UDRP Action Part of Broader Effort to Pressure and Harass Respondent (resumemaker .online *with commentary)
‣ Panel Unable to Find Bad Faith; Parties Rely on Mere Assertions Without Evidence (wickedwraps .com *with commentary)
Parties Are Free to Represent Themselves But Must Bear the Consequences
Planitar Inc. v. David Bohnett, CIIDRC Case No. 26261-UDRP
<iguide .com>
Panelist: Ms. Ivett Paulovics
Brief Facts: The Complainant, having its principal place of business in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, claims that it has used the term “iGuide” in connection with its business for over a decade. The Complainant is the owner of the US trademark “iGuide”, registered on May 19, 2015, for providing an interactive website featuring technology that allows users to view three-dimensional presentations of real estate properties. The Domain Name was registered on July 5, 2002 by a US resident, who did not participate in these proceedings.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name has not been used in connection with an active website offering goods or services, but has resolved to registrar parking pages or holding pages, and has at times been offered for sale through the Registrar’s marketplace. The Complainant further maintains that the registration and use of the Domain Name has caused confusion among potential customers and has prevented the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.
Held: The Panel observes that passive holding of a domain name is not in itself conclusive evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests, absent circumstances indicating targeting of a complainant’s trademark or an intent to exploit its goodwill. Likewise, offering a domain for sale does not automatically negate legitimate interests when the name is a descriptive, dictionary, or commonly used term. The combination “iGuide” may therefore be understood, in a general sense, as referring to an electronic or online guide, independently of any association with the Complainant. In light of this, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is capable of being used for a variety of descriptive, informational, or generic purposes unrelated to the Complainant. On the present record, and in the absence of evidence showing that the Respondent’s registration or holding of the Domain Name was intended to target the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel is not persuaded that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
In the present case, the Domain Name was registered more than a decade before the Complainant acquired trademark rights and before any documented commercial use of the mark. The Complainant asserts that it has used the term “iGuide” for over a decade and that it has become well known among consumers. However, the Complainant has not submitted evidence demonstrating that its mark had acquired reputation, distinctiveness, or widespread recognition prior to, or at the time of, the registration of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Complainant acknowledges in the Complaint that, because the Domain Name was already registered, it was “forced to use variants of the domain (goiguide .com) in order to direct customers” to its website. This statement confirms that, when the Complainant commenced its business activities and established its online presence, the Domain Name was already registered by a third party and unavailable for registration. In these circumstances, the Panel finds no basis to conclude that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the Complainant in mind, or with the intention of exploiting the Complainant’s reputation or goodwill.
The Complainant further contends that the Domain Name has been used “purely” to attempt a sale to the owner of the trademark at a marked-up price. However, the Complainant has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that the Respondent approached the Complainant, contacted it directly, or otherwise sought to sell the Domain Name specifically to the Complainant. The evidence on the record indicates only that the Domain Name has, at certain times, been listed for sale through the Registrar’s public marketplace. Such listing appears to have been accessible to any interested party and not directed exclusively or specifically at the Complainant. Moreover, no fixed sale price is displayed on the relevant webpage, and the price is available only upon request. In the absence of evidence of targeted solicitation, specific offers, or conduct directed at exploiting the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel is not persuaded that the Respondent’s conduct falls within paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy or otherwise demonstrates bad faith registration or use.
RDNH: In particular, panels have found RDNH where a complainant files a complaint in circumstances in which the disputed Domain Name clearly predates the complainant’s trademark rights, and where no credible evidence is presented to support a finding of targeting, bad faith registration, or exceptional circumstances capable of overcoming the temporal gap. Such cases are often referred to as “Plan B” complaints, namely attempts to obtain through the UDRP a domain name that could not be acquired through commercial negotiation. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the Complainant proceeded to file the present Complaint without providing substantiated evidence of reputation, consumer recognition, targeting, or bad faith intent, and relied instead on conclusory assertions. The Complaint also fails to address in any meaningful way the decisive issue of the temporal priority of the Domain Name.
The Panel also considers that the Complainant cannot justify the filing of the Complaint on the basis of ignorance of the Policy or of well-established UDRP case law. While parties are free to represent themselves in UDRP proceedings, they must bear the consequences of choosing not to seek appropriate legal advice. This is particularly so given that the Policy has been in place for over twenty-five years and that a substantial body of publicly available UDRP jurisprudence exists on issues such as prior domain name registration and the requirement of bad faith targeting. In the Panel’s view, a commercially sophisticated complainant in possession of the relevant facts ought reasonably to have appreciated that it could not satisfy the requirements of Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The filing of the Complaint in these circumstances indicates an attempt to use the Policy as a substitute for commercial acquisition of a valuable domain name, rather than as a remedy against abusive registration.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Internally Represented
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This is a well-reasoned decision from Panelist Ivett Paulovics that methodically applies foundational UDRP principles – particularly with respect to passive holding, temporal priority, and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”). The analysis is careful, structured, and entirely consistent with established jurisprudence.
Passive Holding Is Not Per Se Bad Faith
One of the most important aspects of the decision is the Panel’s clear articulation that passive holding, standing alone, is not conclusive evidence of bad faith. This remains a recurring point of confusion among complainants.
The Panel correctly grounded its reasoning in the framework established by Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000 – 0003, which recognized that passive holding may, in limited circumstances, constitute bad faith – but only where there is no conceivable good faith use of the domain name.
That “no possible good faith use” requirement is critical.
Here, the Panel observed that “iGuide” may be understood in a general sense as referring to an electronic or online guide. That observation is not merely incidental – it goes directly to the Telstra test. If a domain name is inherently capable of descriptive, informational, or generic use independent of the complainant, then the “no conceivable good faith use” standard simply cannot be met.
The Panel therefore found that the domain name could plausibly be used for a variety of legitimate purposes unrelated to the Complainant. That alone defeats any Telstra – based passive holding theory.
This is precisely how Telstra is meant to be applied – narrowly, cautiously, and only where targeting and exclusivity are evident. The Panel’s reasoning reflects a disciplined understanding of that doctrine.
Temporal Priority and the Absence of Targeting
The decisive issue in this case was temporal priority.
The domain name was registered in 2002. The Complainant’s trademark registration dates from 2015, and there was no evidence of reputation, acquired distinctiveness, or secondary meaning prior to registration of the domain name.
As the Panel observed, the Complainant itself acknowledged that it adopted alternative domains because <iguide.com> was already taken when it commenced operations. That admission alone significantly undercuts any claim that the Respondent registered the domain name with the Complainant in mind.
Absent evidence of pre-existing trademark rights or demonstrable targeting, a finding of bad faith registration is legally unsustainable. The UDRP requires bad faith registration and use. Where the domain name predates trademark rights – and no exceptional circumstances are shown – the complaint cannot succeed.
The Panel applied this principle correctly and consistently throughout. The decision reflects a steady and coherent analytical approach rather than a result-driven outcome.
Offering a Domain for Sale
The Panel also addressed the allegation that listing the domain name for sale constituted bad faith under Paragraph 4 (b)(i).
Importantly, the evidence showed only that the domain name was listed on a public marketplace accessible to anyone, with no fixed price displayed and no evidence of targeted outreach to the Complainant.
Panels have long held that offering a descriptive or generic domain name for sale is not inherently illegitimate. Without evidence of targeted solicitation or an attempt to exploit a specific trademark owner, such conduct does not satisfy the Policy’s bad faith criteria.
Again, the Panel applied settled law in a measured manner.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and “Plan B” Complaints
The RDNH finding was equally well – supported.
Panels increasingly identify “Plan B” complaints where a complainant, unable to acquire a domain name through negotiation, attempts to use the UDRP as leverage despite fatal legal defects. This case fits squarely within that pattern :
- The domain name clearly predates trademark rights.
- No credible evidence of targeting was presented.
- The temporal gap was not meaningfully addressed.
- The Complaint relied largely on conclusory assertions.
In these circumstances, the filing itself becomes problematic.
Parties May Represent Themselves – But Must Bear the Consequences
Perhaps the most pointed aspect of the decision is the Panel’s observation that while parties are free to represent themselves, they must bear the consequences of choosing not to seek appropriate legal advice.
This principle was articulated in Everiii & Partners International Co. Ltd. v. Nien Chen, Hearty Creative Inc., ADNDRC Case No. HK – 2301847 where the panel stated:
“The Complainant cannot even justify itself saying, for example, that it ignored the Policy and the well – established UDRP case law. Parties are free to self-represent themselves in UDRP disputes, but they also have to bear the consequences of not seeking appropriate legal counsel. This is particularly true considering that the Policy has been in place for 25 years and the decisions rendered by UDRP panels are publicly available.”
Similarly, in The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340, Panelist David H. Bernstein observed that the Policy has been in place for many years and that parties are expected to familiarize themselves with its requirements and the substantial body of published precedent interpreting it.
The Policy has now been in place for over twenty – five years. A substantial and publicly accessible body of jurisprudence exists regarding prior registration and the requirement of bad faith targeting.
A commercially sophisticated complainant in possession of the relevant dates ought reasonably to appreciate when the elements of Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) cannot be met. Self-representation does not excuse ignoring well-established doctrine. The Policy is not a substitute for commercial acquisition of valuable domain names.
Conclusion
This decision is a strong example of disciplined UDRP adjudication:
- It correctly applies Telstra’s passive holding standard.
- It gives proper weight to temporal priority.
- It distinguishes public marketplace listings from targeted bad faith.
- It recognizes the hallmarks of a “Plan B” complaint.
- It reinforces that ignorance of established jurisprudence is not a defense.
The Complaint was denied, and the RDNH finding was appropriate on the record.
For domain investors and trademark owners alike, the message is clear: passive holding is not inherently abusive; descriptive domain names are not automatically monopolizable; and the UDRP is a remedy for abusive registration – not a shortcut for acquiring valuable digital assets.
Descriptive Domain Name; Complainant’s Alleged Notoriety Not Proven at Time of Registration
<fitactive .com>
Panelist: Mr. Wilson Pinheiro Jabur (Presiding), Mr. Andrea Cappai, and Mr. Douglas M. Isenberg
Brief Facts: The Complainants provides gym and fitness services and has established a franchise system under the FITACTIVE trademark, originally in Italy and later expanded to other European countries. The Complainant claims that in view of significant investments made, various events and promotions through telematic and digital means, as well as TV commercials and mentions at popular programs in Italian newspapers; and the sponsorship of MotoGP and of the A.C. Monza Calcio, an Italian football team playing in the A league, the Complainants’ FITACTIVE trademark became notorious in Italy. The Complainants’ official website is available at <fitactive .it>, having the domain name been registered on September 29, 2014. The First Complainant owns multiple FITACTIVE‑formative trademarks, including registration for FITACTIVE (registered in Italy on December 11, 2020). The disputed Domain Name was registered on May 5, 2005, and presently redirects Internet users to the webpage available at <venture .com>, where it is being offered for lease.
The Complainant sent an email to the Respondent inquiring about the price for the disputed Domain Name, to which the Respondent requested “a price in the six-figure range only.” The Complainant alleges that this makes it clear that the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name for the purpose of reselling it at a price that far exceeds the out-of-pocket costs. The Respondent contends to have historically registered short or common word domain names which are commercially valuable due to their inherently valuable single and multiple common dictionary word dot com domains. The Respondent notes the disputed Domain Name was registered by its predecessor, CK Ventures, Inc., on May 5, 2005, at least 13 years before the Complainant’s earliest 2018 trademark applications, so there is no evidence of cybersquatting. For over eight years the Domain Name has been listed among the Respondent’s assets on a platform for leasing domains, and before 2017 it was parked with services sharing PPC ad revenue, showing generic ads related to the domain’s keywords.
Held: The Panel notes that, based on the available record, the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name before the Complainants began using or acquired any rights in the FITACTIVE trademark. In light of the disputed Domain Name’s descriptive or generic character, and in the absence of evidence that the Respondent targeted the Complainants, the Panel considers that the Complainants have not demonstrated that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name. Further, the evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed Domain Name was to profit from or exploit the Complainants’ trademarks, which were only registered more than a decade after the registration of the disputed Domain Name. The Panel notes that the disputed Domain Name is being offered for sale, but this is not sufficient on its own, considering the circumstances of this case, to conclude that the Complainants have satisfied their burden of proving registration and use in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed Domain Name in bad faith targeting the Complainants or their trademark rights because the Complainants did not prove that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name due to its significance in relation to the Complainants or any trademark of the Complainants. Furthermore, the Complainants did not prove to be notorious or well-known at the time that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name, nor did they assert to have any trademark rights at that time. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1. The Complainants also did not provide any evidence showing that the Respondent was targeting the Complainants with the disputed Domain Name at any point in time. On the contrary, the Panel finds more likely than not that the Respondent registered it due to its value as a descriptive domain name.
RDNH: This is a clear case in which the Complainants, represented by counsel, ought to have known that they could not have succeeded under the Policy: the Complainants did not claim any trademark rights – whether registered or unregistered – in FITACTIVE at the time the disputed Domain Name was registered; the disputed Domain Name was registered in 2005, well before the Complainants registered their FITACTIVE trademarks in 2015/2016; the disputed Domain Name consists of the combination of two common words which can be read as descriptive; the Complainant intends to rely on its alleged notoriety which however was not proven at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name; there is no bad faith registration by the Respondent, who has not targeted the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: LMN – Consulenza legale in proprietà intellettuale, Italy
Respondent’s Counsel: ESQwire .com PC, United States
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This decision reflects a disciplined and orthodox application of the UDRP, particularly with respect to temporal priority, descriptiveness, and the requirement of bad faith targeting. The Panel carefully examined the record and concluded not only that the Complaint failed, but that it constituted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Temporal Priority Remains Decisive
The disputed domain name was registered in 2005. The Complainants’ earliest trademark rights arose more than a decade later. That temporal gap should have been dispositive from the outset. The UDRP requires bad faith at the time of registration. Where a domain name predates any registered or unregistered trademark rights, and there is no evidence of pre-existing notoriety or targeting, a finding of bad faith registration is legally unsustainable.
The Complainants attempted to rely on alleged notoriety in Italy, citing sponsorships and promotional activities. However, the Panel correctly observed that there was no evidence demonstrating that the mark was well-known at the relevant time — namely 2005. Nor was there evidence that the Respondent was aware of, or targeting, the Complainants. Without proof of contemporaneous trademark rights and targeting, the third element cannot be satisfied.
Descriptive Character of the Domain Name
The Panel also gave appropriate weight to the descriptive nature of the domain name. “Fit” and “Active” are common English words. Their combination is readily understood as descriptive in connection with fitness services. The Panel expressly found it more likely than not that the Respondent registered the domain name because of its value as a descriptive domain name rather than because of any association with the Complainants.
This reasoning is entirely consistent with longstanding UDRP precedent recognizing that investors may legitimately register descriptive or dictionary word domain names for their inherent value. The mere fact that a complainant later adopts the same words as a trademark does not retroactively convert a lawful registration into cybersquatting.
The Complainants emphasized that the Respondent sought a six-figure price. But as panels have consistently held, offering a domain name for sale — even at a substantial price — is not bad faith where the domain name is descriptive and was registered without targeting a trademark owner. Absent evidence that the Respondent registered the domain name to exploit the Complainants specifically, the price requested is irrelevant.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and Representation
The RDNH finding was well supported. The Panel expressly noted that the Complainants were represented by counsel and ought to have known that they could not succeed under the Policy. The domain name predated any trademark rights. The mark was not proven to be notorious at the time of registration. The domain consists of common words. There was no evidence of targeting. In these circumstances, proceeding with the Complaint was not merely unsuccessful — it was improper. This is precisely the type of “Plan B” complaint the RDNH doctrine is intended to deter.
The Panel’s emphasis on representation is significant. Panels frequently hold represented complainants to a higher standard because counsel are presumed to understand the Policy, including the requirement of bad faith registration and the importance of temporal priority. More is expected where professional advice is involved.
That said, the distinction is nuanced. The standard under the Policy is not lowered for unrepresented complainants. They too must act responsibly and must familiarize themselves with the Policy and the substantial body of published UDRP jurisprudence. The Policy has been in place for over twenty-five years. Thousands of decisions are publicly available. Ignorance of settled doctrine is not an excuse. The difference is not that the bar is low for unrepresented parties — it is that the bar is even higher for represented ones.
Here, because the Complainants were represented, the Panel quite properly emphasized that they ought to have known better. But the broader principle applies equally to all parties: the UDRP is a remedy for abusive registration, not a substitute for commercial acquisition of valuable, descriptive .com domain names.
The Complaint was denied, and the finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking was fully warranted on this record.
Panel Rejects Respondent’s Redaction Request
Red Mountain Med Spa, LLC v. Eli Rosenberg, NAF Claim Number: FA2601002198897
<redmountain .com>
Panelist: Mr. Douglas M. Isenberg
Brief Facts: The Complainant claims to be a leading medical weight loss and spa service provider, offering health- and wellness-related products and services. The Complainant is the owner of U.S. trademark registrations for RED MOUNTAIN WEIGHT LOSS (registered December 22, 2015), RED MOUNTAIN MED SPA (registered January 10, 2017), and RED MOUNTAIN WEIGHT LOSS (registered September 30, 2025). The Complainant uses the RED MOUNTAIN Marks in its domain names and associated websites, <redmountainweightloss .com> and <redmountainmedspa .com>, and claims that, through widespread use, it has acquired extensive rights and goodwill in the RED MOUNTAIN marks and the domain names. The disputed domain was purchased by the Respondent in 2020 and resolves to an inactive webpage. The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent through the registrar to offer to purchase the disputed Domain Name for US $5,000; however, the Respondent refused the offer unless the Complainant were to offer or pay an amount “in the six digits” (i.e., over US $100,000).
The Complainant argues that it filed this Complaint to stop the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain and to prevent any further harm to itself and its customers who may be confused by the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent contends that he is “a licensed financial professional in the real estate industry,” “a licensed Mortgage Loan Originator in nine states, and has an unblemished reputation in the field of financial services”; and that the disputed Domain Name “is among several domain names based on the Respondent’s own last name,” given that “Rosenberg” means “red mountain” in German. As a result, the Respondent claims rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent further contends that “Respondent has never heard of the Complainant prior to this dispute, and the Complaint advances utterly no factual basis to believe that a native and resident of Brooklyn would have ever heard of the Complainant’s chain of clinics in Arizona, any more so than any of hundreds of other ‘Red Mountain’ businesses in Arizona”.
Preliminary Issue – Respondent’s Request For Redaction: The Respondent appears to request that the Panel redact Respondent’s name from this decision pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy. In support thereof, the Respondent cites Mountain Top (Denmark) ApS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0133416460 / Name Redacted, Mountaintop Idea Studio, WIPO Case No. D2020-1577, in which the panel wrote that “many of the Complainant’s allegations are demonstrably false and that the Respondents will be harmed by them if the Respondent Individual’s name is included in this Decision.” The Respondent states: “Complainant’s goal here, even if unsuccessful, is to forevermore associate ‘Eli Rosenberg’ and ‘extort’ in internet search engines, to be found by persons considering engaging the Respondent’s financial services.” Despite considerable weakness in the Complainant’s case, the Panel sees no evidence of such a goal from Complainant here. Further, the Respondent’s name is not so unusual to justify such concerns.
Held: The Panel acknowledges that there appears to be an argument for bad faith with respect to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. However, Complainant’s argument fails here for at least one essential reason: Paragraph 4(b)(i) requires evidence that the Respondent tried to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain name to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant – evidence that is absent here. The record indicates that the Complainant initiated communications about purchasing the disputed Domain Name, and nothing supports the perspective that the Respondent was aware of or targeted the Complainant in any manner. Given the number of trademarks identified by the Respondent that include the words “RED MOUNTAIN” owned by third parties, it is impossible for the Panel to agree with Complainant’s argument that the Respondent sought to exploit the Complainant. Further, the Panel finds Complainant’s assertions regarding the distinctiveness and fame of the RED MOUNTAIN trademark unsupported, and there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the RED MOUNTAIN trademark. Accordingly, the decisions cited by the Complainant are inapplicable here.
For example, in HDR Global Trading Limited v. A Si Di Fen Teng Ren, FA 1975598 (Forum Dec. 31, 2021), cited by the Complainant, the Panel said that the Respondent “has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark” and “[i]t is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed Domain Name that would not violate the Policy.” Here, on the other hand, the Respondent has presented a plausible explanation for registering the disputed Domain Name, and, given the numerous registrations by third parties of trademarks that include the words “RED MOUNTAIN,” it is easy to envisage many uses of the disputed Domain Name that would not violate the Policy. In HDR Global Trading Limited v. Ni Cary, FA 1972574 (Forum Dec. 15, 2021) cited by the Complainant, the Panel referred to “the distinctiveness and fame of Complainant’s mark,” which was registered “with various trademark agencies throughout the world” and, apparently was not a part of any registrations owned by third parties. Here, on the other hand, the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark is apparently registered only in the United States, and the Complainant has provided no evidence that it is highly distinctive or famous. In short: No factual or legal arguments in the Complaint support a finding of bad faith.
RDNH: Here, the Complainant (which is represented by an attorney) has failed to establish the bad faith element of the Policy, many of its important factual assertions are unsupported by the record and many of the decisions cited by the Complainant are clearly inapplicable here. The Complainant (via its attorney) knew or should have known that it could not succeed in this proceeding, and that a number of its statements were unsupported (and perhaps unsupportable), such as its attempt to equate the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark to trademarks that are distinctive, famous and well-known and that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the RED MOUNTAIN Trademark. As a result, the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at RDNH.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Howard Sobelman and Gabrielle M. Morlock of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., USA
Respondent’s Counsel: John Berryhill, USA
For further reading: See Andrew Allemann, “John Berryhill won this UDRP but is still unhappy…”, Domain Name Wire, February 10, 2026, which discusses the UDRP outcome and post-decision commentary on reputational concerns arising from the disputes.
Panel Finds This UDRP Action Part of Broader Effort to Pressure and Harass Respondent
Employment Universe, Inc. v. Fernando Ignacio, aiCarousels AB, WIPO Case No. D2025-4760
<resumemaker.online>
Panelist: Mr. John Swinson (Presiding), Mr. Paul DeCicco Panelist and Mr. Tony Willoughby
Brief Facts: The US-based Complainant operates a website at <resumemaker .com> which can be used to generate resumes. The Complainant’s website states: “For over 20 years, we’ve been the #1 best-selling resume writing app. We’ve helped millions land their dream jobs. And, we’ve rebuilt ResumeMaker from the ground up with powerful AI to make writing the perfect resume faster and easier than ever.” Individual Software, Inc. is the registered owner of the US trademark for RESUMEMAKER. On November 30, 2024, it granted the Complainant a two-year exclusive license to use the RESUMEMAKER trademark and certain related assets. The disputed Domain Name was registered on July 28, 2018 and resolves to a website, which provides online services to use AI to create resumes. In 2024, the Respondent applied to register a mark incorporating “ResumeMaker.Online” in Sweden, but it was refused on the basis that the mark lacks distinctiveness. Between November 6, 2025 and November 27, 2025, the Complainant issued various correspondence to the Respondent and its suppliers, including a proposal for a “collaboration”, a cease and desist demand, and an offer to acquire the disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant alleges that the use of the RESUMEMAKER mark on the website at the disputed Domain Name is guaranteed to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers, given the identical federally registered mark, identical products, and bad faith intent. The Respondent contends that the disputed Domain Name consists of ordinary English dictionary words and that “resume maker” is widely used in the marketplace as a generic or descriptive term and that he has operated this bona fide modern cloud service continuously for more than seven years. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant now seeks to use a weak, descriptive mark with limited scope to capture a plainly descriptive domain name, after first approaching the Respondent with “collaboration” and “merger or acquisition” proposals, then following up with threats of treble damages and substantial legal fees and only turning to the Policy when no deal was reached. The evidence shows the Complainant is attempting to use the Policy as a commercial bargaining tool, not to remedy cybersquatting.
Held: The Panel finds that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used the disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services. Since 2018, the Respondent offered an online resume building platform using the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent provided substantial evidence of such use by the Respondent, including third party awards and other promotion and publicity. The Respondent’s platform is a bona fide offering of services. Further, the evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed Domain Name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark.
Based on the materials provided by the Respondent, the term “resume maker” is a common term used in the industry to describe the services of the kind provided by the Respondent. The Respondent is based in Sweden, while the Complainant is located in the United States, and there is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent targeted its services toward customers in the United States. The Complainant provided no evidence of its reputation, in the United States or anywhere else, particularly in Sweden, or in 2018 or at the present time. There is no evidence that the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant when selecting and registering the disputed Domain Name in 2018.
Moreover, the Complainant’s mark is not inherently distinctive. It is a highly descriptive mark. The term “resume maker” is inherently attractive as a domain name for a resume making service. Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot infer that the Respondent knew or should have known that the Complainant had rights in RESUMEMAKER that would prevent the Respondent from registering and using the disputed Domain Name in good faith. The Complainant cites recent website changes as evidence of bad faith, but the record shows the Respondent made those changes on a “without admissions” basis to assist its payment service provider amid the Complainant’s actions, conduct reflecting good faith, not bad faith.
RDNH: The Panel finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) for several reasons. The Complainant first attempted unsuccessfully to purchase the disputed Domain Name, then failed to disclose that attempt and related correspondence, including with the Respondent’s payment service provider. The Panel considers this part of a broader effort to pressure and harass the Respondent, who has operated a legitimate business since 2018. The Complainant also offered no explanation for its seven-year delay in filing the claim.
Further, the Complainant should have known it could not succeed under the Policy, particularly given its awareness of the Respondent’s business and prior “partnership” proposal. The Complaint was unsupported by evidence, cited no relevant Policy precedent or WIPO guidance, relied on irrelevant U.S. trademark law, and was substantively brief. Accordingly, the Panel concludes the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Internally Represented
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This was not a close case — and the Panel made that clear.
At its core, this dispute involved a highly descriptive term — “resume maker” — used by a Respondent who had operated a bona fide resume-building service since 2018. The Panel emphasized what should be obvious in cases involving descriptive marks: the more descriptive the mark, the narrower the scope of protection, and the stronger the evidentiary burden to prove targeting and bad faith.
Here, there was no such evidence. The Respondent was based in Sweden. The Complainant provided no evidence of reputation — in 2018 or otherwise — sufficient to establish that the Respondent knew or should have known of its mark. Nor was there any persuasive showing that the Respondent registered the domain to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill. On this record, the inference the Complainant invited the Panel to draw simply could not be drawn.
The decision is also notable for the Panel’s treatment of post-registration conduct. The Complainant attempted to characterize website modifications as evidence of bad faith. The Panel rejected that narrative, finding that the changes were made on a “without admissions” basis in response to pressure directed at the Respondent’s payment provider. That distinction matters. Adjustments made under commercial pressure are not retroactive proof of bad-faith registration.
Where this decision becomes particularly significant is on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
The Complainant first attempted to acquire the domain through a proposed collaboration and purchase overtures. When those efforts failed, it escalated — including contacting the Respondent’s service providers — and ultimately filed a UDRP complaint. The Panel viewed this pattern as part of a broader effort to pressure and harass a domain name holder operating a legitimate business for seven years.
The Panel also pointed to the absence of supporting evidence, the failure to engage with relevant UDRP jurisprudence or WIPO guidance, reliance on inapplicable U.S. trademark concepts, and the unexplained seven-year delay. Taken together, the Panel concluded that the Complainant should have known it could not succeed under the Policy.
This case reinforces several recurring themes in UDRP jurisprudence:
- Descriptive marks require clear proof of targeting.
- Longstanding, bona fide use weighs heavily against bad faith.
- The Policy is not a substitute for unsuccessful acquisition negotiations.
The RDNH finding was not incidental. It was the logical consequence of a Complaint that attempted to stretch a descriptive trademark into control over an inherently attractive domain name — without the evidence required to do so under the Policy.
Panel Unable to Find Bad Faith; Parties Rely on Mere Assertions Without Evidence
Wicked Wraps, LLC v. Jason Scott, NAF Claim Number: FA2601002199273
<wickedwraps .com>
Panelist: Ms. Eugene I. Low
Brief Facts: The Complainant operates a business in Mukilteo, Washington that makes car wraps called Wicked Wraps with a website at <wickedwraps .net>. The Complainant claims to have used Wicked Wraps since April 18, 2005 and has owned the trademark for Wicked Wraps since November 5, 2024. The Respondent contends that the disputed Domain Name was first registered in July 2004 and has been registered continuously since that time. The Domain Name predates the Complainant’s business by several years. The Complainant alleges that Mr. Scott and his business WrapJax do not do business as Wicked Wraps, rather the Respondent is a competitor in Tacoma, Washington with his business WrapJax, which uses <wickedwraps .com> to redirect to its website <wrapjax .com>.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site. By redirecting <wickedwraps .com> to <wrapjax .com>, the Respondent has created confusion in the marketplace as consumers think they are contacting Wicked Wraps but end up on WrapJax’s site, insinuating a connection between competitors Wicked Wraps and WrapJax. The Complainant’s attorney sent a demand letter to stop the redirection of <wickedwraps .com> to <wrapjax .com> and WrapJax complied in November 2025, but Mr. Scott refused to transfer the domain name.
The Respondent further contends that the phrase “wicked wraps” is a combination of common dictionary terms. The word “wicked” is frequently used as a descriptive adjective by unrelated businesses across a variety of industries. As such, the phrase is not uniquely associated with the Complainant and the Domain Name was not viewed or acquired as a reference to the Complainant, but rather as a descriptive phrase. The Domain Name was briefly redirected, and this redirection was not intended to disrupt the Complainant’s business or cause confusion regarding source, sponsorship, or affiliation. Once it became apparent that such use could potentially cause confusion, the redirection was promptly discontinued.
Held: The Complainant has a trade mark registration for WICKED WRAPS in the US in the Principal Register. This is sufficient to establish the Complainant’s standing under this element. Accordingly, the Complainant has established the first element. However, the Panel notes that the Complainant asserts that it has used the mark in commerce since April 18, 2005. While the Panel notes that this alleged date of first use is consistent with the date of first use as stated in Complainant’s US trademark registration record, the Complainant has produced no evidence of use at all in these proceedings. Without any evidence in support, the Panel cannot find that the Complainant has any common law rights in the trademark.
The disputed Domain Name was created in 2004, which pre-dates Complainant’s trademark registration and alleged date of first use. While there are suggestions that the Respondent might not be the first registrant (Respondent submitted that it “lawfully acquired the domain name from a third party”), neither party has produced any evidence on the ownership history of the disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, there is no evidential basis for the Panel to find whether the Respondent was the first registrant or a subsequent purchaser (and if so, when the Respondent purchased the disputed Domain Name). This issue is important for assessing the second and third elements.
Both parties are relying on their mere assertions, without evidence. The Panel cannot rule out the possibility that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name. Furthermore again both parties are relying on their mere assertions, without evidence. As mentioned above, the timing of Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed Domain Name would have been an important consideration under this element. Without any evidence, the Panel is unable to find Respondent’s registration and use in bad faith.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Katy M. Young of Ad Astra Law Group, PC, USA
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Case Commentary Edited and Approved by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:
This decision is a straightforward reminder that the UDRP is an evidentiary proceeding — not a forum for competing narratives.
The disputed domain was created in 2004. The Complainant’s alleged first use was in 2005, and its federal registration issued in 2024. That chronology alone should have signaled that proof of bad faith registration would be difficult. Yet the record contained no evidence clarifying when the Respondent acquired the domain, whether he was the original registrant, or what knowledge he may have had at the time of acquisition. That missing evidence was central, and the Panel said so.
Equally striking was the absence of proof on common law rights. Although the Complainant alleged use since 2005, it produced no supporting evidence of that use. A registration establishes standing under the first element, but unsupported assertions do not establish earlier rights capable of overcoming a domain created before those rights accrued.
On the Respondent’s side, there was similarly little evidentiary development. The Respondent asserted lawful acquisition and descriptive use of common dictionary terms, but again provided no ownership history documentation. The Panel was left with competing statements and no record to resolve critical factual issues.
The alleged bad faith centered on a redirection from <wickedwraps.com> to a competing site. The Respondent discontinued that redirection after receiving a demand letter. But without evidence regarding when the domain was acquired — and therefore whether the Respondent could have targeted the Complainant at registration — the Panel could not make the necessary finding under the third element.
The Panel’s repeated observation that both parties relied on “mere assertions, without evidence” is the takeaway. The burden rests with the complainant. Where the evidentiary record does not establish timing, knowledge, or targeting, a finding of bad faith registration cannot follow.
This case underscores a recurring lesson: chronology matters, acquisition history matters, and unsupported allegations — even where a competitor relationship exists — are insufficient to carry the burden under the Policy.
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 professio