Another UDRP:


It looks like another UDRP was filed on a three letter .com domain name. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) database, a UDRP was filed for the domain name. The complainant in this UDRP is listed as Dumankaya Yapi Malzemeleri San. VE TiC. A.S. This is WIPO Case D2015-1757. On Saturday, I wrote about the UDRP that was recently filed. appears to be owned by Frank Schilling’s Name Administration, Inc. The domain name is parked, which is a perfectly legitimate business model. Whois records show that the company has owned since sometime between 2003 – 2005 (so likely at least ten years.)

I don’t think I have ever heard of the complainant before today. I don’t immediately see why they think they have a right to get via the UDRP system instead of buying the domain name. There appears to be one trademark in the USPTO database for “dky,” but that looks to be owned by a company in China with a different business name.

I did a Google search for Dumankaya and dky, and it looks like there is a business on that has both of those terms. A subsequent Whois search for that domain name shows the registrant is “DUMANKAYA YAPI MALZEMELERI SAN VE TIC A.S.” so it appears that is the company that filed the UDRP.

There have been several UDRP filings against Name Administration domain names, but the company rarely loses. A few examples of denied UDRP filings include,,, and I don’t see any other UDRP filings against Name Administration at the WIPO this year.

It’s frustrating to see companies file UDRPs against what seem to be legitimately owned domain names like this one. If you visit, you can see there is a link that says “Click here to buy for your website name!” so it would seem they chose to file a UDRP rather than pay for this domain name.

I’ll keep you posted when I see the decision.


  1. DKY is a new company formed from Dumankaya Construction, famous in Istanbul, which is in fact a relative of mine.:)

    I am sorry that they chose this cheap way to acquire a domain.

    Deserves a reverse hijacking for sure.

  2. ES, you’re spot on with this article – Ideally a UDRP should be used for addressing name abuses or infringements, not as a punitive recourse, or worse as a lowball way to acquire a DN legitimately owned and being used as a business model.



  3. The Domain Name Association should respond to such UDRP abuses. Unfortunately, they don’t do much, although many use to believe the DNA will help to reform the UDRP to protect legit domain owners.

    • I do think some UDRP reform would be beneficial but it could also have harmful effects potentially. There’s always a give and take, so if domain investors got some protections, they might lose some as well.

    • With the rise in 3L prices, this is only going to continue, as uneducated buyers are going to be blown out of the water when quoted a price.

Leave a Reply