: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding in UDRP for 17 year old domain

RDNH finding for

RDNH finding for

Having the domain “Under Construction” is an indication of cybersquatting, according to the Complainant in a frivolous UDRP.

WorldClaim Global Claims Management apparently hadn’t performed due diligence when making the following claim:

“The WHOIS information shows that the disputed domain name is registered to a URL of <>, which is under construction, and therefore the disputed domain name is seemingly a chain of cybersquatters. 

Further, it redirects users to links that are unrelated to the business model of Complainant, but within the same industry, and has done so for over 10 years. The disputed domain name redirects Internets users to insurance companies. “

The Respondent not only had secured in 1999 for a valid use, predating the Complainant’s WORLDCLAIM mark registration by 8 years, they are also attorneys themselves!

“Respondent has used the disputed domain name with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is a licensed personal injury attorney and an active member of the Washington State Bar Association in good standing since 1993.  In 1999/2000, Respondent and his associates purchased several domains in connection with a business model for the online dispute resolution of insurance claims (ODR or ODRC).

Claimant’s law firm, the same firm with the Attorney of Record having registered the Mark with the USPTO, attempted to purchase the disputed domain name from Respondent in 2005. […] By declining to enter into this transaction, Respondent was exercising its ownership rights.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1999 with no knowledge of any other company by the same name, four years prior to Complainant filing for registration of WORLDCLAIM with the USPTO. Further, the disputed domain name is comprised of two words that are utilized for their generic or descriptive value.”

Roberto A. Bianchi, Panelist at the National Arbitration Forum found the Respondent to have legitimate rights in the domain, and to have registered it in good faith.

Additionally, the Panelist slapped the Complainant with a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

“In the Panel’s opinion, after a simple comparison of dates it must have been evident to Complainant that Respondent had registered the disputed domain name over five years before the filing of the application for the WORLDCLAIM service mark, and also before the date of first use and first use in commerce of the mark, as stated by the registrant of this mark. 

In other words, Complainant must have been aware that Respondent could not have had the WORLDCLAIM mark in mind at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and therefore, that Respondent had not registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.  In the Panel`s view, bringing a UDRP complaint with such awareness is an abuse of the proceedings.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has attempted at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.”

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


Copyright © 2024 · All Rights Reserved.