COURT UPDATE: Lawsuit Filed by Complainant After UDRP on FyreFestival.com Dismissed.
In our September 24, 2025 UDRP Digest we reported on this UDRP decision (See: “Did the Panel Unjustly Deprive the Complainant of a Transfer?”. ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch, commented that “in dismissing what appears to be a strong and clear case, the Panel has in my view, unfortunately likely caused a court case to have to be brought, at much greater expense”. That has now occurred. You can read the lawsuit courtesy of DNW.com here.
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 5.41) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):
‣ Respondent Physician and Investor Provided “Plausible Explanation” For Domain Name Registration and Use (sparc .energy *with commentary)
‣ No Evidence That IDEATEC Uniquely Associated With Complainant (ideatec .com *with commentary)
‣ Former MYBHUTAN.Com Contractor Started Competing Business Under MYBHUTAN.Travel (mybhutan .travel *with commentary)
‣ Panel: TGP is a Three Letter Acronym, With Multiple Legitimate Uses (tpg .one *with commentary)
‣ Complainant’s ‘BEACHES’ Mark is a Common Dictionary Word with Low Distinctiveness (beachesbusinessservices .com *with commentary)
Respondent Physician and Investor Provided “Plausible Explanation” For Domain Name Registration and Use
Commonwealth Fusion Systems LLC v. Yves Eveillard / EVDomains, NAF Claim Number: FA2508002170512
<sparc .energy>
Panelist: Mr. Adam Taylor (Chair), Mr. Douglas M. Isenberg, and Mr. Gerald M. Levine
Brief Facts: The Complainant manufactures high temperature superconducting magnets and claims that it is building “the world’s first commercially-relevant net energy fusion machine”, also known as a “tokamak”, which is named ”SPARC” and will pave the way for the world’s first fusion power plant called “ARC”. The Complainant owns registration for SPARC, filed with the USPTO on July 25, 2019, and registered on September 12, 2023. It operates a website at <cfs .energy>. The disputed Domain Name was originally registered by the Complainant’s former co-founder and Chief Technology Officer but it expired at some point between January 28, 2025, and April 26, 2025, when it was acquired by a third party. The Respondent, domain name investor, acquired in an auction on or around May 8, 2025, for USD $262.17.
The disputed domain resolved to a “SPARC”-branded site titled “SPARC Real-Time Fusion Energy Insights,” featuring AI-summarized fusion news, extensive references to the Complainant’s SPARC project, and prominent forms soliciting inquiries or offers to acquire “sparc.energy.” The site went on to provide detailed information about various developments in fusion energy including extensive reference to the Complainant’s SPARC project. On July 23, 2025, the Complainant emailed asking to acquire sparc.energy, noting it had been managed by a former employee. On July 24, 2025, the Respondent replied that multiple parties were interested and invited binding offers in the mid to high six-figure range, citing strategic value and momentum.
After the Complaint was filed on August 11, 2025, the Respondent changed the site to a holding page with a prominent disclaimer of no affiliation with Commonwealth Fusion Systems or <cfs .energy>. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name, relying particularly on the discussion about the Complainant on Respondent’s AI-generated website; and the allegedly “excessive price” sought by the Respondent for the disputed Domain Name. For its part, the Respondent strongly denies prior knowledge of Complainant’s mark and contends that he regularly reviews domain auction sites and invests in domain names that are primarily related to electronic vehicles, energy saving and alternative energy.
Held: The Panel notes that the term “sparc” is in relatively common use, both as a play on the English word “spark” and as an acronym, including in energy-related industries, and there are multiple trade marks for SPARC in the United States and worldwide. Further, the Complainant has not established that its mark is well-known, at least outside its specialist industry. While it appears to the Panel that, by analogy with the treatment of automatically-generated PPC links respondents should not generally be entitled to disclaim responsibility for AI-generated content, nonetheless, in all the circumstances here, the Panel considers that the AI-generated references to the Complainant, albeit in conjunction with an invitation to buy the disputed Domain Name, do not of themselves establish Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of registration of the disputed Domain Name.
Furthermore, the Respondent did indeed propose a substantial price for the disputed Domain Name, this was in response to Complainant’s inquiry. In the Panel’s view, the level of price sought by the Respondent does not signify that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name to target the Complainant, but more likely reflects a legitimate desire on the part of the Respondent to “cash in”, having been approached by what appeared to be a substantial entity that was keen to buy the disputed Domain Name, which it formerly owned. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in bad faith Policy ¶4(a)(iii). Given that the Policy requirements of registration and use in bad faith are cumulative, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider whether the content of the AI-generated website, or any of the other circumstances of the case, amount to use in bad faith.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: John L. Strand of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., USA
Respondent’s Counsel: Jason Schaeffer of ESQwire .com, P.C., USA
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: This was an exceptionally tough Complaint to defend against. The Complainant had a registered trademark corresponding to the Domain Name. When taking into consideration the gTLD suffix, “energy”, the Domain Name also corresponded to the Complainant’s field of business. The Domain Name resolved to a website that referenced the Complainant in particular. And last but not least, the Respondent asked for mid to high six figures for the Domain Name that he purchased at an expired domain name auction for $262.17.
And yet the Respondent prevailed. The Respondent prevailed because the Respondent’s counsel (an ICA member) was able to convey to the Panel important facts which substantially changed the complexion of the case, including that “sparc” is in “relatively common use…including in energy related industries”. The Panel also appreciated that the Respondent’s website included “AI-generated references to Complaint did not of themselves establish Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark”, and notably concluded that the Respondent has put forward “a plausible explanation, namely that he opted to use the AI news and information services only after registration of the disputed domain name”. The Panel thereby gave the Respondent the benefit of the doubt, which put another way, essentially means that the Complainant did not prove its case.
This is an important aspect, since Respondents should be given the benefit of the doubt where they provide a credibly plausible explanation and where the Complainant has not adequately proven its case.
No Evidence That IDEATEC Uniquely Associated With Complainant
Ideatec S.A. v. Mira Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2025-2648
<ideatec .com>
Panelist: Ms. Karen Fong (Presiding), Mr. Matthew Kennedy and Mr. John Swinson
Brief Facts: The Complainant, established in Belgium in 1997, is engaged in the design and manufacture of electronic controllers and user interfaces for warning lights, sirens, multiplexers, and other auxiliary equipment used on emergency and intervention vehicles. The Complainant previously registered and used the disputed Domain Name in connection with its business activities. The Complainant is the owner of EU Trade Mark Registration for IDEATEC (stylized), filed on October 23, 2020, and registered on March 11, 2021. The Complainant held this domain name since at least 2012 but inadvertently failed to renew it when it expired in March 2023. The disputed Domain Name was registered in April, 2023 by the Respondent, a domain name investor through a drop-catching service. The disputed domain now points to a pay-per-click (PPC) parking page, and the evidence shows no PPC links related to the Complainant or its products. On January 24, 2024, the Complainant contacted the Respondent about buying the disputed domain; the Respondent asked USD $25,000.
The Complainant alleges that the Complainant originally registered the disputed Domain Name in 2004 and used it continuously for its business, which is well known in the field of electronic controllers. The Complainant contended that Respondent was therefore aware, or should have been aware, of the Complainant at the time of registration. As a professional domainer, the Complainant contended that Respondent had a duty to conduct due diligence, particularly since “IDEATEC” is a coined and distinctive term. The Respondent contends that the disputed Domain Name is composed of the ordinary words “idea” and “tec/tech,” which together form a common and widely used business name used by many companies worldwide as shown through various searches. At the time of registration, the Respondent contends it was unaware of the Complainant, a Belgian company with no US trade mark registration or presence. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant approached the Respondent to purchase the disputed Domain Name; the Respondent’s quoted price of USD $25,000 was consistent with market valuations and sales for similar domain names.
Held: In this case, the Respondent has made only general statements about its business practice as a domain investor, including reference to reviewing trade mark databases but has not provided clear evidence of any specific searches carried out before registration. The Panel observes that the disputed Domain Name is composed of two ordinary elements and does not correspond to a highly unique or well-known mark. This is not a case involving a coined or fanciful term but rather a combination of common components making it plausible that the disputed Domain Name was selected for that reason. The relatively non-distinctive nature of the disputed Domain Name, in the circumstances of the case, diminishes the likelihood that the Respondent registered it with the Complainant specifically in mind. The evidence also shows that the term IDEATEC is used by various entities around the world, including companies in Spain, Chile, France, and elsewhere, across diverse fields.
There is no evidence that the term is uniquely associated with the Complainant, or that the Respondent’s asking price (USD $25,000) was set with the Complainant in mind as the only realistic purchaser. The Respondent’s explanation that it acquired the disputed Domain Name because it is memorable and commercially attractive is credible. The Complainant has not demonstrated that the Respondent knew or should have known of its Trade Mark at the time of registration. The Complainant has no trade mark registration in the United States nor any apparent business presence there, where the Respondent is based. This further supports the conclusion that targeting has not been shown. Taking these factors together, the Panel is not persuaded that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when registering the disputed Domain Name. On the balance of probabilities, the Complainant has failed to prove bad faith registration.
RDNH: The Panel is not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence in this case to show that, at the time of filing, the Complainant knew or should have clearly known that it could not prove one of the essential elements of the Policy. The Complainant previously owned the disputed Domain Name and holds a registered Trade Mark identical to it, and has advanced arguments in support of its position. The fact that the Panel ultimately does not accept those arguments is not, by itself, evidence of bad faith. Nor is there evidence of harassment or similar conduct. This is not a case in which the UDRP has been used in bad faith to attempt to deprive the Respondent of a domain name. Accordingly, the Panel declines to find reverse domain name hijacking.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: COGITUS SRL, Belgium
Respondent’s Counsel: Internally Represented
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: There are a number of notable aspects to this case.
The Panel found that the Respondent’s explanation that it acquired the Domain Name because it is memorable and commercially attractive was “credible”. Given the evidence of international third-party use and that the term, IDEATEC is a “combination of common components”, the Panel found that “it [was] plausible that the disputed domain name was selected for that reason”.
The concept of “plausibility” is important and was also determinative in the <sparc .energy> case, above. Plausibility must be credible, but where it is found to exist in terms of a Respondent’s explanation of the reason for registering a particular domain name, a Panel may give the Respondent the benefit of the doubt. As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 0.2, in disputes where a Complainant has not clearly made out its case or where the evidence for each side is closely balanced, the Panel’s main consideration may not be the civil standard of proof per se, but instead the proper scope of the Policy. As an expedited administrative procedure without many of the safeguards provided in courts of law, the UDRP is only intended for and only equipped to resolve clear cut cases of cybersquatting where there is no reasonable counter-narrative to the Complainant’s allegations of cybersquatting. A Panel may determine that in disputes that do not clearly favor one party over the other, the overriding consideration is the appropriate scope of the Policy such that a case is best left to the courts which are equipped and intended to resolve unclear cases. Panels should never feel obliged to transfer a Domain Name where the evidence does not permit the Panel to responsibly conclude that the Respondent is likely a cybersquatter.
Former MYBHUTAN.Com Contractor Started Competing Business Under MYBHUTAN.Travel
MyBhutan, LLC v. Chechay Nidup, NAF Claim Number: FA2508002173761
<mybhutan .travel>
Panelist: Mr. Alan Limbury; Mr. Dennis A. Foster and Mr. Gerald M. Levine (Chair)
Brief Facts: The Complainant claims to be a leading boutique luxury travel designer and outfitter for the Country of Bhutan since 2013. It is the owner of a U.S. trademark registration for the mark MyBhutan & Design which issued on January 30, 2018. The Respondent is a Bhutanese national and tourism entrepreneur with more than 15 years of experience in Bhutan’s tourism industry. The Complainant is a foreign-owned company registered in Puerto Rico, United States. Bhutan’s FDI and tourism regulations bar foreign entities from independently owning or operating tourism businesses. To comply, MyBhutan, LLC engaged the Respondent as an Independent Contractor under a June 5, 2019 agreement to support its Bhutan operations. The Complainant alleges that there is no reason to use the domain <mybhutan .travel> other than to trade off Complainant’s registered trademark, name, domain names and reputation in the industry. The Respondent contends that over time, the partnership between the parties concluded naturally. After the engagement ended, the Respondent chose to continue running her own tourism business independently, drawing on her professional experience and local expertise, as she had prior to working with MyBhutan, LLC.
The Complainant filed supplement filings, whereby it argues that the Respondent admits that she signed the Independent Contractor Agreement with the Complainant, which bars her from engaging in the travel/tourism business for one year after the relationship ends in August 2026 and from using any MYBHUTAN trademarks, names, logos, or other assets. The parties’ agreement makes crystal clear the relationship between the parties, in particular, that the Respondent had a limited license to use the Complainant’s trademark for the duration of the Independent Contractor Agreement. That right was terminated on July 28, 2025. What is an even more glaring showing of bad faith is that the Respondent registered the subject domain <mybhutan .travel> in 2024, well before the independent contractor agreement was terminated. Thus, she set in motion her intention to terminate the agreement several months before notifying the Complainant because her intent was to continue to wrongfully use the MYBHUTAN name in violation thereof. In its “SURREBUTTAL” the Respondent contends that the performance of the ICA, particularly the non-compete and intellectual property clauses, directly conflicts with Bhutanese public policy regarding foreign ownership in the tourism sector and the non-registrability of generic/descriptive terms as trademarks.
Held: The Panel rejects the Respondent’s argument that the Royal Kingdom of Bhutan could disregard contracts or affect the Complainant’s trademark rights, as no official pronouncements or legal basis were shown to undermine the Complainant’s exclusive rights to MYBHUTAN or to deem it generic or descriptive. The evidence shows that the license’s extension on April 29, 2025, occurred when she had already decided to terminate the Agreement. The facts indicate that while the initial license may have been contemplated under the Agreement, its later extension was used for independent business interests. The claim that registration of <mybhutan .travel> in her own capacity was unrelated to the Agreement is unconvincing, as she had known since 2019 that the Complainant owned the MYBHUTAN mark. Even assuming she held the license personally, such would not support a good faith registration of the domain name since at the time she acquired it, she had actual notice of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel, therefore, concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption that she lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant shows that Respondent’s rights to use or display its trademark were limited by the Independent Contractor Agreement, and those rights ceased upon termination. The Panel dismisses Respondent’s contention that US trademark rights do not extend to Bhutan, noting it would contradict the intent of the UDRP for any jurisdiction to negate protection of a legitimate trademark. The disputed Domain Name resolves to a webpage using the Complainant’s mark, with a “MyBhutan 2025” copyright, and the Respondent intends to use it for travel services, directly competing with the Complainant. This conveys a false impression of affiliation and constitutes impersonation under paragraph 4(b)(iv). Despite the Respondent’s claim that her services are local, the universal accessibility of domain names makes this competition direct and global, fitting the definition of cybersquatting under paragraph 4(b)(iii). The Respondent’s false assertion that the domain was registered in August 2025 rather than February 2024 further illustrates bad faith, as accuracy is critical in such proceedings. The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used <mybhutan .travel> in bad faith, satisfying paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, while other alleged fraudulent acts fall outside the Policy’s scope.
Transfer
Complainant’s Counsel: Jonathan A. Winter of Farber LLC, USA
Respondent’s Counsel: Tika R. Basnet of Basnet Attorneys and Law, Bhutan
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: The Panel went to great lengths to address and dismiss the multitude of complex facts and arguments advanced by the Respondent in this matter. Ultimately however, this can be seen as a simple case. A former independent contractor left MyBhutan.com to start up Mybhutan.travel. The Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s business and clearly started its own competing business to take advantage of the Complainant’s established reputation and goodwill.
Panel: TGP is a Three Letter Acronym, With Multiple Legitimate Uses
TPG Telecom Limited v. Dragoslav Kovacevic, Qubit10, WIPO Case No. D2025-2970
<tpg .one>
Panelist: Mr. Nick J. Gardner
Brief Facts: The Complainant is an Australian company resulting from the merger, in 2020, between Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Limited and TPG Corporation Limited (subsequently named TPG Telecom Limited). The Complainant is the second-largest telecommunications company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, with a current market capitalization of USD $10.15 billion. The term “TPG” in the Complainant’s name derives from an acronym for a predecessor entity called Total Peripherals Group. The Complainant is the owner of trademarks consisting of, or including, the term “TPG,” including word and figurative marks registered in Australia on December 23, 2020, and November 1, 2021. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names <tpgtelecom .com. au> and <tpg .com .au>. The disputed Domain Name was registered on May 7, 2025. It resolves by redirection to a website located at <the-platform-group .com>.
The Complainant alleges that given the term “tpg” has a distinctive nature as a coined mark and the Complainant’s significant reputation, there is no legitimate basis for registration of the disputed Domain Name other than to disrupt the Complainant’s business or for commercial gain as a result of confusion. The Complainant also notes that the disputed Domain Name was registered shortly after the Complainant filed Australian trade mark application no. 2544506 for a logo mark comprising TPG on May 1, 2025. The Respondent contends that the disputed Domain Name was registered for The Platform Group AG’s legitimate business expansion, where “tpg” serves as a natural abbreviation of the company’s name. The three-letter abbreviation “tpg” is inherently generic and descriptive, requiring the Complainant to meet a higher evidentiary burden. The Respondent provides multiple examples of other usages of “tpg”.
Held: The evidence clearly establishes (i) of Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies. “TPG” is an acronym for The Platform Group which is a large and well established German company. The disputed Domain Name uses that acronym and resolves by redirection to the Respondent’s own website. There is nothing to suggest the Respondent would have had any knowledge of the Complainant when it registered the disputed Domain Name. The Panel takes the view that there are some three letter trademarks where the evidence of fame and reputation is well established on a world-wide basis that knowledge can be inferred. See for example <bmw .org>. But where fame is limited by geography or field, that does not justify inferring a registrant in a different area lacked a legitimate interest. The Panel cannot see anything in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3, which assists the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Respondent has established that it has a legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name.
TPG is not a coined mark – “Vodafone” is an example of a coined mark – TPG is a three letter acronym. The Complainant’s own use of it can be traced back to it being an acronym for Total Peripherals Group. There are any number of legitimate reasons why a third party might use that acronym. Given the Respondent is named ’The Platform Group’ there is a clear and very obvious reason why it had a legitimate basis for registering the disputed Domain Name. It has placed in evidence details of a technology project it is currently working on, which is named “TPG ONE”. It is entirely appropriate for it to have registered the disputed Domain Name for use in connection with this project. There is nothing here that suggests bad faith. The Panel further cannot conceive of any plausible advantage a bona fide German company offering IT platforms to European businesses could gain by creating confusion with a view to attracting customers of an Australian telecoms company.
RDNH: In the view of the Panel this is a Complaint which should never have been launched. Anyone who inspected the Respondent’s Website should have immediately realised that it was a bona fide website operated by a large and well-established German company. It was self-evident the disputed Domain Name was an acronym for that company’s name. Given there is no evidence that the Complainant has any reputation outside Australia and there is no evidence that the Respondent’s website was targeting the Complainant it should have been apparent at that initial stage that any complaint was without merit and would inevitably fail. In all the circumstances the Panel agrees with the Respondent that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Bird & Bird, Australia
Respondent’s Counsel: Benner Holding, Germany
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Well done, Panel. A clearly explained and well-deserved finding of RDNH in the circumstances.
Complainant’s ‘BEACHES’ Mark is a Common Dictionary Word with Low Distinctiveness
<beachesbusinessservices .com>
Panelist: Ms. Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa
Brief Facts: The Complainant has operated international holiday resorts under the “Beaches Resorts” brand since 1997, including locations in Turks & Caicos, Jamaica, and the Bahamas. It is the proprietor of several trademark registrations, including the UK trademark for BEACHES (device mark), registered on June 5, 1998; EU Trademark for BEACHES (word mark), registered on March 22, 2012. The disputed Domain Name was registered on April 13, 2025. The Complainant asserts that the website at the disputed Domain Name lacks content, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name to pursue legitimate interests or to offer legitimate goods or services in good faith.
The Complainant further alleges that the disputed Domain Name reflects the Complainant’s BEACHES mark, in which it has developed goodwill and a reputation, along with the descriptive terms “business” and “services,” which are likely to confuse Internet users seeking information about the Complainant’s services for business clients. The disputed Domain Name is being held for the purpose of likely future use that will tarnish and dilute the Complainant’s well-known marks and confuse Internet users. The Respondent has shielded its identity by using a privacy service. The Respondent did not file a response in these proceedings.
Held: The evidence in the case file as presented does not provide the Panel with a basis to conclude that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed Domain Name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s BEACHES mark corresponds to a dictionary word in the English language, and, in that respect has low distinctiveness – the Panel recognizes however that as applied to the services provided, as shows in the record, the Complainant has acquired significant renown and therefore distinctiveness in the BEACHES mark. The evidence available does not however indicate that the Complainant has used its mark in connection with the terms “business services”.
The Panel also notes that a quick Google search shows a number of businesses using the terms “beach” or “beaches” together with “business services.” As the disputed Domain Name is not being used, there is insufficient evidence for the Panel to find bad faith registration of the disputed Domain Name. Under these circumstances, the Panel is unable to find that the Complainant has proved that the registration and passive holding of the disputed Domain Name is indicative of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. On this record, the Panel is also unable to conclude that the possible future use of the disputed Domain Name constitutes a basis to find tarnishment of the Complainant’s mark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.12.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Dechert LLP, United Kingdom
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: This is a good reminder that no response does not mean that a Panel must transfer. Here, the Panel noted that given the nature of the Complainant’s BEACHES trademark which has “low distinctiveness” and given that absence of any use of the Domain Name, there was “insufficient evidence for the Panel to find bad faith registration of the domain name”. Well done, Panel. A Panel does right when it is aware that there are no default judgments in the UDRP. A Complainant must prove its case each and every time, even where a Respondent fails to file any Response.
In this particular case, it was readily apparent to the Panel that given the nature of the Domain Name and lack of any use of it, there was simply no basis to conclude that the Complainant was the target of the registration.
About the Editor:
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.