Revnue.com UDRP: Filipino Respondent won case; to be continued

In the UDRP case involving the domain Revnue.com, the Panel dismissed the Complaint after determining that the disputed domain was fundamentally the result of a business and contractual conflict between former company partners, not a matter of cybersquatting.

Although the Complainant, Revnue Corp., claimed trademark rights and alleged bad faith by the Respondent who is based in the Philippines, the Panel noted the domain was registered in 2018—well before the company’s formation in 2021—and there was no evidence of bad-faith registration or use under the UDRP.

Finding the matter beyond the scope of the UDRP, the Panel denied the transfer request and ordered that the domain remain with the Respondent.

Revnue Corp. v. John Cortez

Claim Number: FA2504002151368

PARTIES

Complainant is Revnue Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael D. Lazzara of Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl LLC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is John Cortez (“Respondent”), represented by Eric Alspaugh, California, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is revnue.com, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 19, 2025; Forum received payment on April 19, 2025.

On April 21, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the revnue.com domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 April 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 12, 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@revnue.com. Also on April 22, 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.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 12, 2025.

On May 12, 2025, pursuant to the Parties’ request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the owner of all rights in and to the logo and service mark REVNUE and registrations thereof (the “Complainant’s Marks”). Complainant has continuously offered services under the REVNUE mark since at least as early as October of 2020, and continues to offer such. Complainant has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the mark for many years making the mark well known. The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s federally registered REVNUE mark and logo.

Respondent initially registered the domain name as part of his duties as an officer for the Complaint. Respondent served in various positions with the Complainant, including as Chief Information Officer (“CIO”), Chief Information Security Officer (“CISO”), and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). Respondent further understood that he owed a legal obligation to the Complainant to register assets such as the disputed domain name, in the Complainant’s name as a company, and not in the Respondent’s own name as an individual.

Despite repeated requests, Respondent has in bad faith improperly retained control of the disputed domain name in a clear attempt to hold the Complainant hostage for compensation. Complainant has now removed Respondent from all roles of responsibility with the Complainant. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s marks for any purpose. Respondent has no established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

The domain name currently resolves to a website rightfully belonging to the Complainant. Upon information and belief, the Respondent is engaged in unauthorized activity in the form of redirecting internet traffic from Complainant’s website to a new website set up by Respondent.

Complainant further believes that Respondent diverts internet traffic to Respondent’s alternate website for the purpose of generating revenues by improperly leveraging the goodwill in Complainant’s marks. Internet users are being misled into thinking that Respondent’s website is related to and/or operated by Complainant. Among other bad faith behavior, it can be seen that the Respondent uses identical representations of Complainant’s marks within the content of the Respondent’s website.

Upon information and belief, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name primarily to profit from and exploit Complainant’s Marks. Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s Marks to redirect internet users constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

Upon information and belief, Respondent knowingly registered and retained control of the domain name, which contains an exact reproduction of Complainant’s marks, in his own name as an individual despite Respondent’s obligation to Complainant to preserve and protect the Complainant’s assets as company assets.

B. Respondent

This dispute arises from an internal corporate breakdown and financial dispute between the Complainant, Revnue Corp., and its co-founder and former officer, Respondent, John Cortez. The facts and documentation demonstrate that the domain name was registered years before the Complainant existed and was used in connection with legitimate business purposes throughout Respondent’s tenure with the company and beyond.

The domain name was registered on June 13, 2018, by Respondent John Cortez through his personal Google Domains account. The purchase was made using credentials affiliated with Think Scale LLC, a company co-owned by Cortez and Sunny Sharma (50/50 managers), but Respondent personally paid for the registration, and no company funds were used. At the time of registration, neither Revnue Corp. nor its predecessor Revnue Inc. existed.

The original entity, Revnue Inc., was incorporated on August 20, 2018, more than two months after the domain was secured. This entity was later dissolved. The Complainant, Revnue Corp., was formed on February 10, 2021, in the State of Delaware. At no time during the existence of either entity did Revnue Inc. or Revnue Corp. compensate Respondent for the domain or execute any written agreement requiring its transfer.

There is no written agreement obligating Respondent to transfer the domain to the company. In fact, emails provided by Respondent indicate that when asked about the domain, he responded with transparency, stating that he had registered it before the company was formed and was willing to transfer it if a proper agreement was presented. None agreement was reached regarding the disposition of the disputed domain name.

Respondent also operates revnue.ph, the domain associated to Revnue APAC Solutions Corp., a duly registered Philippines corporation, originally established with Revnue Corp.’s and Sunny Sharma’s knowledge and blessing as the Asia-Pacific headquarters for the company’s offshore operations.

A broader business dispute is currently underway between Respondent, Think Scale LLC, Bundee Technologies Inc., Revnue Corp., and Sunny Sharma. Demand letters and litigation in Utah (related to the Think Scale OnDeck loan) further illustrate that this matter concerns ownership of corporate assets, compensation, and debt, not cybersquatting.

The Complainant’s assertion that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith is both factually incorrect and legally unsupportable under the UDRP. It is impossible to register a domain name in bad faith toward a Complainant that did not yet exist and had no trademark rights. The timeline here is dispositive.

Complainant has provided no evidence that Respondent registered with the intent to sell the domain to the Complainant, to divert its customers, or to disrupt its business. The Complainant has not identified any instance of Respondent offering the domain for sale, misleading visitors, or using the domain in a way designed to confuse or harm. The domain was registered in good faith and used as part of early-stage branding, infrastructure, and operations for Respondent’s business ventures.

This case represents a textbook example of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Complainant knew the current dispute stems from complex financial, employment, and governance issues, not trademark infringement or cybersquatting. Yet, the Complainant deliberately omitted or distorted facts to cast Respondent as a bad-faith actor. This is a clear abuse of the UDRP process. The UDRP is not a substitute for litigation between business partners or a tool to pressure former executives into surrendering assets outside the bounds of contract or equity.

FINDINGS

Complainant is Revnue Corp. (“Complainant”), of West Covina, CA, USA. Complainant is the owner of the domestic federal registration for the mark REVNUE and its associated registered logo under which it asserts to have continuously offered ongoing business services since 2020.

Respondent is John Cortez (“Respondent”), of West Covina, CA, USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as New York, NY, USA. The Panel notes that the revnue.com domain name was registered on or about June 13, 2018.

Complaint contends, without providing any supporting evidence, that the Respondent initially registered the domain name as part of his duties as an officer for the Complaint. The domain name registration date preceded Complainant’s existence.

The parties were business partners in Complainant’s current business and in prior business relationships. Respondent asserts, without opposition, that there are ongoing legal matters related to the parties’ past and continuing business relationships.

The Panel finds that this is a business and/or contractual dispute between two parties that falls outside the scope of the UDRP. See Love v. Barnett, FA 944826 (Forum May 14, 2007) (“A dispute, such as the present one, between parties who each have at least a prima facie case for rights in the disputed domain names is outside the scope of the Policy … the present case appears to hinge mostly on a business or civil dispute between the parties, with possible causes of action for breach of contract or fiduciary duty.”); see also Luvilon Indus. NV v. Top Serve Tennis Pty Ltd., DAU2005-0004 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2005) (“[The Policy’s purpose is to] combat abusive domain name registrations and not to provide a prescriptive code for resolving more complex trademark disputes .… The issues between the parties are not limited to the law of trademarks. There are other intellectual property issues. There are serious contractual issues. There are questions of governing law and proper forum if the matter were litigated. Were all the issues fully ventilated before a Court of competent jurisdiction, there may be findings of implied contractual terms, minimum termination period, breach of contract, estoppels or other equitable defenses. So far as the facts fit within trademark law, there may be arguments of infringement, validity of the registrations, ownership of goodwill, local reputation, consent, acquiescence, and so on.”).

Prior panels have declined to make any UDRP findings where evidence existed that both parties acted in official capacities for the company at the center of the dispute. See Bracemart, LLC v. Drew Lima, FA 1494699 (Forum Mar. 28, 2013) (…”[b]ased upon this reasoning, the Panel concludes that the instant dispute relates to contractual interpretation and/or whether the relationship between Complainant and Respondent was one of employer-employee or one of partnership, which determination falls outside the scope of the Policy.”).

Based upon the aforementioned cases and the record, the Panel here concludes that the instant dispute falls outside the scope of the UDRP. Because the Panel finds this matter falls outside the scope of the UDRP, the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint. See Everingham Bros. Bait Co. v. Contigo Visual, FA 440219 (Forum Apr. 27, 2005) (“The Panel finds that this matter is outside the scope of the Policy because it involves a business dispute between two parties. The UDRP was implemented to address abusive cybersquatting, not contractual or legitimate business disputes.”); see also Fuze Beverage, LLC v. CGEYE, Inc., FA 844252 (Forum Jan. 8, 2007) (“The Complaint before us describes what appears to be a common-form claim of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. It is not the kind of controversy, grounded exclusively in abusive cyber-squatting, that the Policy was designed to address.”).

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complaint is dismissed because the issues are outside the scope of the UDRP.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complaint is dismissed because the issues are outside the scope of the UDRP.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Complaint is dismissed because the issues are outside the scope of the UDRP.

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The RDNH claim is denied because the issues are outside the scope of the UDRP.

DECISION

The Complaint is dismissed because the issues are outside the scope of the UDRP. Therefore the relief requested is DENIED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the revnue.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: May 26, 2025

Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.