In October, I wrote about the UDRP filed against the Hims.com domain name. The UDRP was decided by a three member panel, and the domain registrant will be able to keep the domain name after the complaint was denied.
The primary reason the complaint was denied was because proving the domain name was registered in bad faith, which is necessary to prevail in a UDRP, was impossible. I mentioned that in the article I wrote about the UDRP filing, and the panel ruled in favor of the domain registrant because of that. Here’s the relevant discussion in the decision:
“Respondent contends that its renewal of the registration does not establish bad faith. When a respondent registers a domain name prior to a complainant establishing rights in a mark, Panels have overwhelmingly found that the respondent did not register a domain name in bad faith. See Telecom Italia S.p.A. v. NetGears LLC, FA 944807 (Forum May 16, 2007) (determining the respondent could not have registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith where the respondent registered the disputed domain name before the complainant began using the mark); see also Arena Football League v. Armand F. Lange & Assocs., FA 128791 (Forum Dec. 26, 2002) (“[O]nce a Panel finds that a domain name was originally registered in good faith, any subsequent renewal [that] could qualify as having been done in bad faith is irrelevant: the relevant point of inquiry occurs at registration, not renewal of that registration.”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain name predates Complainant’s claimed rights in the HIMS mark by more than twenty years, and that its use of the domain name was legitimate both before and after renewal. Specifically, the Panel notes that Respondent is entitled to use the disputed domain name as he sees fit, regardless of the timing of discussions regarding Complainant’s desire to purchase the disputed domain name. “
Not surprisingly, the domain registrant asked the panel to consider a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). It looks like the registrant asked for this because of the impossibility of registering the domain name in bad faith so many years prior to the complainant’s existence. The panel declined
