After $4k+ Sale, UDRP Filed on UOVO.com (Updated)

0

I was looking through the newest UDRP filings this morning at the World Intellectual Property Organization, and I came across a UDRP that was filed on the 4 letter .com UOVO.com domain name. The UDRP was filed by a company called Uovo Art LLC, and it is WIPO Case D2016-0214.

When I did a Whois search to see the current owner of the domain name, I saw that it was privately registered at NameBright and had a 2015 creation date. I was curious if this might have been a DropCatch auction due to the registration date and registrar. I then looked at NameBio to see if there are any public sales records. Sure enough, according to NameBio, “UOVO.COM last sold for $4,125 on 2015-09-12 at DropCatch.”

At the present time, UOVO.com has a “for sale” landing page, and the domain name appears to have an asking price of $125,000. As we know, selling domain names is a legitimate business enterprise.

I did a Whois history search on the domain name using DomainTools, and it appears that the domain name was previously owned by someone based in Italy prior to its expiration and deletion. I did a Google  search for Uovo Art LLC, and I came across a company that operates on UOVO.org. The terms and conditions page mentions “UOVO ART LLC” so it is possible that this company is the complainant.

Until the UDRP decision is published with more information about the complainant, I won’t know who filed the UDRP and why they believe they have the rights to this domain name. During the last couple of years, LLLL.com and other short domain names have gone up in value considerably. It will be interesting to learn more about the case once the UDRP decision is published. Once I see that a decision has been rendered, I will try to update this article.

Update: UDRP has been denied, and the decision can be read on WIPO’s website. John Berryhill represented the domain owner who has retained the domain name. The most relevant aspect of the decision was the following “The Respondent has presented a plausible claim that the disputed domain name was registered based on its attractiveness as a dictionary word or descriptive term. It is not a violation of the Policy to register a domain name and offer it for sale to the public where such use is not seeking to profit from and exploit the trademark of another.”

1 COMMENT

  1. LOL, Acro first thought I had too, $1500 name. Good ole Namejet “where the suckers buy”. I am kidding of course not all buyers are suckers just 80-90%.

Leave a Reply