Legal News

More UDRP Filings at WIPO in 2018 Than 2017


I was looking at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website today, and I saw that the organization added 2019 to its UDRP cases search page. This should mean that the organization closed out the 2018 year for UDRP filings, allowing me to compare the number to the prior year.

In the 2018 WIPO UDRP case list, the most recent UDRP filing is listed as case D2018-2952. I believe this means that there were 2,952 UDRP filings for the year. The latest UDRP filing was for Similac.Top. The UDRP was filed by Abbott Laboratories.

In the 2017 WIPO UDRP case list, the last UDRP filing of the year was listed as case D2017-2603. The final UDRP of 2017 at WIPO was against The UDRP was decided in favor of the complainant, W.W. Grainger, Inc.

Kanye West Files UDRP Against Domain Name (Updated)


It looks like Kanye West and Mascotte Holdings, Inc. have filed a UDRP at the World Intellectual Property Organization to try and gain control of the domain name. The UDRP is WIPO case #D2018-2788.

From what I understand, Yandhi is the title of Kanye’s next album, which has apparently been delayed a couple of times. Yandhi will be a follow up to his hit album, Yeezus (West Brands LLC owns but does not use The Yandhi name was announced in a Kanye West tweet this past September:

The domain name was registered on September 16, 2018. Because the domain name was

BCG.Top URS Decision is Surprising


I don’t typically report on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) decisions. I also don’t typically report on disputes involving the new gTLD domain names unless there is something very compelling. The URS decision involving the BCG.Top domain name is an exception. The panelist ruled in favor of Boston Consulting Group, which has a trademark for “BCG.”

Here is why the URS was created for new gTLD domain names, courtesy of the ICANN website:

The Uniform Rapid Suspension System is a rights protection mechanism that complements the existing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) by offering a lower-cost, faster path to relief for rights holders experiencing the most clear-cut cases of infringement.

You will notice it says “clear-cut cases of infringement.” In my opinion, some examples of clear cut infringement could be,, or These are all Domain Name Retained by Registrant Despite No Response


I occasionally take issue with a UDRP panelist for one reason or another, but today I want to compliment WIPO panelist Desmond J. Ryan for a job well done.

A UDRP was filed against the domain name at WIPO, and the domain registrant did not respond to the complaint. Fortunately for the registrant, the single panelist ruled in its favor and the registrant will be able to keep the domain name.

I say it is fortunate because of what was stated in the UDRP, particularly Section 5 (Parties’ Contentions). From the decision:

“(v) The Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent’s claim that the disputed domain name was bought “a few years ago” is false and in bad faith as the WhoIs shows that it was acquired by the Respondent on April 18, 2018.”

Here is a screenshot of the current Whois record via GoDaddy:

Registrant Retains Domain Name


In October, I wrote about the UDRP filed against the 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

GoDaddy / NameFind Wins UDRP, But It’s Worth a Read


When I first saw the UDRP filing, I thought it would be a slam dunk for GoDaddy, which is the registrant of the domain name via its NameFind portfolio company. The UDRP decision was published today, and although the registrant prevailed, it seemed a bit closer than I would have assumed. GoDaddy was represented in this proceeding by Gerald Levine of Levine Samuel, LLP.

Legally is a generic dictionary term, and it is also the name of at least a couple of companies that use domain extensions. The complainant in this filing is a company that was established in 2015, and it uses the Legally.CO domain name for its business. NameFind reportedly acquired the domain name in 2017 when it acquired a group of domain names from YummyNames, which is the portfolio company associated with Tucows.

There was quite a bit of discussion about whether or not the domain name was registered in bad faith. Legally is a keyword, but it is also a trademark for the complainant. Here’s an excerpt from the decision discussing this:

Recent Posts

Domain Name Sales: Publicity vs. Privacy

Some domain investors and investment companies prefer to keep their domain name purchases and sales private. Others like to share their deals publicly. Some... Acquired by Firefly Aerospace

A few weeks ago, I read an article about a company called Firefly, which had just raised $21.5 million in seed funding. I knew...

All of NamesCon’s Domain Names

With NamesCon being the largest domain industry conference and a conference sponsored by quite a few new gTLD operators, it is no surprise that...

Risk & Reward of Buying a Domain Portfolio

I am occasionally offered the opportunity to purchase a domain name portfolio. Most of the time, the portfolios I am sent are relatively small,... Sold via Media Options

I recently detected that the domain name had transferred to GoDaddy. It was noteworthy because I knew that it had been listed for...