: After UDRP victory, domain owner lashes out at Complainant

RDNH finding for

RDNH finding for

When you win a UDRP with a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH), you might as well do a victory lap. ๐Ÿ˜€

The domain was challenged via a UDRP by a Scottish company that claimed rights to the TRTL mark. Only problem was, the mark was registered 10 years after the domain.

IP attorney, John Berryhill, represented the owners of and communicated to the Complainant’s attorneys that the UDRP was going to fail, asking them to withdraw it.

“The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2000, some 10 years before the Complainant came into existence, and 13 years before the Complainant acquired rights in respect of the mark TRTL and subsequently commenced trading under that name. In those circumstances, it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the name TRTL at the time of registration. In this Panelโ€™s view, therefore, the Domain Name cannot conceivably have been registered in bad faith.”

A three member panel found that the Complainant was guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and ordered to remain with its owner.

The Respondent’s victory lap can now be seen at, documenting the timeline of the events, along with information that should help domain investors with similar cases.

For more information on the UDRP, click here.

Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved.


5 Responses to “ : After UDRP victory, domain owner lashes out at Complainant”
  1. Steve says:

    What a bunch of morons over at and their attorneys. According to their own timeline on their site they renamed their product twice because of “trademark” issue, perhaps they should add this usurp loss to their own site as well.

    The whole udrp process stinks, the loser should be required to pay all winners expenses. Until then it’s meaningless as there is no punishment other than being shamed. Kudos to the winner for shaming them


    May – September 2013
    We have a trademark issue with Powernap and have to rebrand. This was a huge challenge at the time but we managed to keep on going.

    December to June 2016
    We initially call the product SleepScarf and then move to NapScarf because of trademarking issues. Obviously ‘Trademarking’ isn’t one of our strong points! We finally settle on Trtl Pillow to keep things simple.

  2. DomainGang says:

    Steve – Indeed, such a lack of market research can be devastating to one’s brand. Now they have two options: rebrand once again, or acquire the domain at a fair price, as dictated by the market. The domain’s owner might want to consult with a domain brokering firm.

  3. Steve says:

    Well at this point the price should no longer be fair price as market dictates but rather the price the owner dictates knowing whom the buyer is plus udrp expenses and then some . This has got to stop. Loser pays nothing is insanity. It becomes a business numbers decision , why bother to buy when you have a chance at stealing it throug udrp. Why pay 4,5 or 6 figures for a name when you can throw the dice and try to steal it? Other than shaming there is no deterrence . What will it take? Who will have to lose a domain for change? why can’t we as a group lobby for this , the DNA, ICA. Etc.

  4. DomainGang says:

    Steve – It would make perfect sense for the domain owner to file a lawsuit in order to reclaim his legal costs. They are both in the UK so I’m sure this would be resolved either directly or via the British courts. They wanted $75,000 for the domain, if I were the owner I’d double my asking price overnight.

  5. Steve says:

    Lol I agree , also wondering if they can sue their law firm for malpractice being that they were aware of all this

Leave a Reply

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

 characters available