: UDRP deflected by Satoshi Shimoshita with RDNH finding!

RDNH finding for

RDNH finding for

Satoshi Shimoshita is a hard-working domain investor from Japan; many domainers who have been around for the past 15 years have probably done business with him at some point.

Satoshi invests in generic, dictionary domains and compound word domains, and one of them,, was hit with a UDRP claim at the WIPO.

The Complainant is Moon Juice Ventures, LLC of Los Angeles, California.

Satoshi Shimoshita represented himself, often considered a dangerous move, as experienced IP attorneys can take any case to the next level.

According to the Complainant:

“The Complainant owns a trade mark registration as set out above which it submits that it has used in connection with “fruit juices, vegetable juices, juice bar services, and takeout restaurant services” since at least January 23, 2012. The Complainant also submits that it has used the MOON JUICE mark in connection with the following goods and services: “cosmetics, perfumery, soaps, non-medicated bath preparations, non-medicated skin care preparations; nutritional supplements; fruit and nut-based food bars; cereal-based food bars; and bakery goods” since at least May 1, 2013 and notes that it has filed a further trade mark application for these goods. As noted above the Complainant says that it owns 12 domain names containing the MOON JUICE mark and as such that it is crucial to its business that the disputed domain name should also be transferred to it.”

The domain was registered in 1998, however, a good 15 years prior to the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent pointed that out:

The Respondent submits that he registered the disputed domain name approximately 10 years before the Complainant registered its MOON JUICE mark. He says that he had never heard of the Complainant before he received this Complaint.

The Respondent asserts that although the disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page he intends to use it for a future business and has not acted in bad faith. He says that he never approached the Complainant to sell the disputed domain name and that he simply responded to an unsolicited approach to acquire it by the Complainant.

On the contrary the Respondent submits that the Complainant is acting in bad faith by filing this Complaint and that it amounts to a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

Alistair Payne, panelist, not only decided that should remain with Satoshi Shimoshita, but it also delivered a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

[…]  it seems to the Panel that this Complaint was brought in order to obtain a domain name that the Respondent had bona fide registered many years prior to the commencement of the Complainant’s business or the registration of its trade mark.

Following the Respondent’s refusal of the Complainant’s offer to purchase of the disputed domain name the Complainant still attempted to obtain the disputed domain name by filing this Complaint under the Policy in circumstances that there was clearly no registration in bad faith, or evidence of targeting of the Complainant by the Respondent.

As a result there was no reasonable basis on which the Complaint could succeed and the Panel finds that this Complaint amounts to a case of reverse domain name hijacking.

For the full text of the UDRP decision, click here.

Copyright © 2023 · All Rights Reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available