DataSnap LLC, a 2025-formed data analytics startup using thedatasnap.com and a 2025 U.S. application for DATASNAP, tried to wrest the domain Datasnap.com from Sedo, a well-known domain marketplace that holds the name at GoDaddy.
The Panel immediately hit a wall on the first UDRP element: the domain was registered in 2002, while the Complainant admitted it didn’t exist then and produced no real evidence of earlier common-law rights; only a 2025 AI-written article and a self-issued press release, with no sales, advertising, or recognition data.
The Panel added that, given the 23-year gap, the domain could not have been registered in bad faith toward a company that didn’t yet exist, and the UDRP’s conjunctive “registration and use” test made the Complainant’s “bad-faith use only” theory a non-starter.
The record also showed a messy 2025 GoDaddy brokerage attempt: Sedo allegedly agreed to sell for $3,500 lowering an asking price of $50,000 dollars; GoDaddy took payment into escrow, then refunded it when Sedo claimed it no longer controlled the domain, even though WHOIS still shows Sedo as the registrant; exactly the kind of contractual/escrow dispute the Panel said belongs in court, not under the UDRP.
Final decision: Complaint denied, datasnap.com remains with Sedo, with the unresolved “stuck in transfer escrow” saga left for another venue.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.DataSnap LLC v. Sedo
Claim Number: FA2510002185956
PARTIES
Complainant is DataSnap LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Danyal Ali of DataSnap LLC, California, USA. Respondent is Sedo (“Respondent”), Massachusetts, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is datasnap.com, (the “Domain Name”) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 29, 2025; Forum received payment on October 29, 2025.
On October 30, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the datasnap.com Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 25, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@datasnap.com. Also on November 5, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 26, 2025 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Pursuant to Rule 12 of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, on November 26, 2025 the Panel requested that the Complainant provide evidence of the date of incorporation of the Complainant and evidence that the Complainant had established common law rights i.e. had acquired distinctiveness in the DATASNAP mark prior to the date of registration of the Domain Name. On the same day the Complainant provided an additional submission addressing these requests.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant incorporated in 2025 operates a data intelligence and analytics platform under the brand name DATASNAP. Complainant owns the domain name thedatasnap.com registered in 2025 through which it operates its web site and holds U.S. Trademark Application No. 99340529 for DATASNAP also applied for in 2025.
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name registered in 2002 is identical to the Complainant’s DATASNAP mark for the purposes of the Policy, however, the Complainant did not file any evidence of established common law rights prior to the date of registration of the Domain Name by the Complainant, or any sales or advertising evidence at all to demonstrate the duration or geographical scope of its alleged rights, only one Internet article written by AI that suggests the Complainant is successful in its field as of September 2025 and a press release the Complainant issued in that same month detailing its offerings and suggesting it had clients, although no details of such clients are given.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant says the Respondent is holding the Domain Name for profit as, through GoDaddy’s brokerage in 2025 the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name for USD 50,000 to the Complainant and later accepted the Complainant’s offer of USD 3,500, but subsequently reneged, demonstrating, the Complainant says, the Respondent’s bad faith and intent to extract higher payment. The Domain Name is now being used for commercial pay per click links and the Complainant says this is bad faith, confusing for commercial gain. The Complainant argues it is sufficient to show use in bad faith of the Domain Name by the Respondent that occurred subsequent to the Complainant’s use of the DATASNAP mark and that the Complainant does not have to show that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith in 2002.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
The Complainant incorporated in 2025 operates a data intelligence and analytics platform under the brand name DATASNAP. Complainant owns and operates the website thedatasnap.com registered in 2025 and holds U.S. Trademark Application No. 99340529 for DATASNAP also applied for in 2025.
It appears that the Disputed Domain Name registered in 2002 was offered for sale in 2025 to the Complainant for $50,000 and there is some evidence that also in 2025 the Complainant agreed to purchase the Domain Name from the Complainant for $3500 and paid Go Daddy to complete the purchase, but the money was returned as the Respondent claimed it no longer had control of the Domain Name, although the Domain Name registration details suggest that the Respondent still owns the Domain Name. The Domain Name is currently being used for commercial pay per click links.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the designation DATASNAP and the gTLD .com.
The Complainant has admitted that it was incorporated in 2025 and did not own common law rights in DATASNAP prior to registration of the Domain Name in 2002. Further the Complainant has not provided evidence of common law rights by way of sales or advertising. It has provided an Internet article from September 2025 that suggest it is successful in its field, although the Panel is not clear on how much weight can be placed on that article which appears to have been written by AI. The Complainant has also provided a press release released by itself outlining its offerings, but there is no clear evidence of common law rights in terms of public recognition or any real indication of the duration or geographical scope of the Complainant’s rights.
As such the Panel holds that the Complainant has not proven that it has rights in the DATASNAP name sufficient to satisfy Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
As such there is no need to consider in detail the issues of whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate in the Domain Name or has used it in bad faith. The Panel will comment, however, that there appears to be no room for reasonable doubt that since the Complainant was incorporated twenty three years after the Domain Name was registered that the Domain Name could not have been registered by the Respondent in 2002 in bad faith. Since, contrary to the arguments of the Complainant, the Policy requires both registration and use in bad faith, had the Complainant shown established common law rights for the purposes of the Policy it would still have failed to satisfy the Policy requirements to show both registration and use in bad faith. If the Complainant thinks that it had a binding contract with the Respondent to purchase the Domain Name the correct forum for litigating that issue will be courts of competent jurisdiction over the same.
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the datasnap.com Domain Name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: December 4, 2025
