Home Legal News

Legal News

Fox.org UDRP Decision is Upsetting


Last night, I saw that WIPO had posted an update regarding the Fox.org UDRP. Fox.org is a domain name registered in 1996, and I think “Fox” is a pretty generic term. The decision was listed as “Transfer,” which meant the complainant, Fox Media LLC, had prevailed. I hoped it was an error, but unfortunately, that was not the case. The decision was published today, and Fox Media LLC won the decision and will get the Fox.org domain name barring legal intervention.

The UDRP respondent in this case is a person named Bill Biersdorf. Interestingly, the name of the registrant differed from what was provided by the domain registrar:

Escapade.com UDRP Denied – Domain Has Reasonable Asking Price


A single panelist at the World Intellectual Property Organization denied the UDRP complaint against the Escapade.com domain name. The decision was published today, with Marina Perraki serving as the panelist. The decision was not a surprise given the domain registrant’s long-held trademark. What surprised me was the asking price for this one word .com domain name.

Here’s an excerpt from the discussion about bad faith registration and usage:

Tox.com UDRP Ends in RDNH Finding


A company called Tox Pressotechnik GmbH & Co. KG from Germany filed a UDRP against the valuable Tox.com domain name. The UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (case number D2022-3270). The three member panel published its decision today – a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). In this case, the domain registrant was represented by Cylaw Solutions and the complainant was represented by Otten, Roth, Dobler & Partner GmbH.

Before filing the UDRP, the complainant apparently offered to buy Tox.com for $24,000 USD. The domain registrant reportedly sent a number of comparable three letter .com domain name sales with sale prices ranging from $140,000 to $1.5 million USD. In its decision, this panel once again backed a company’s right to invest in domain names. Here’s an excerpt from the discussion about rights or legitimate interests in the domain name:

Chewy UDRP Illustrates What Brands Go Up Against


I was browsing through some recently filed UDRP cases, when a domain name popped out at me. A UDRP was filed against AmericansJourney.com by Chewy at the World Intellectual Property Organization. It is WIPO case #D2022-3876.

On its own and without initially doing any background searching, the AmericansJourney.com domain name sounds somewhat defensibly generic. I could see it being a blog about an American’s journey though the world or something like that. Compared to a more clearly infringing domain name like ChewyPetSupplies.com, AmericansJourney.com does not seem super-infringing on a well-known brand name. There’s often more to the story, and this case is no different.

In “Exceptional Case,” Panel Redacts Complainant from UDRP


This morning while reading some UDRP decisions from the National Arbitration Forum, I came across a UDRP decision that had something I have never seen before. The decision listed the complainant as “Redacted” and the domain name as <[redacted].com>. The complainant won the UDRP and requested anonymity due to how the domain name had been used. The panelist, Alan L. Limbury, granted this request.

In the decision, Mr. Limbury discussed this unusual request and shared his rational for determining that this qualified as an “exceptional case,” which allowed him to honor the complainant’s request:

RDNH Finding in Kosmos.com UDRP


A company called Kosmos Global Holding, S.L. from Spain filed and lost a UDRP against the Kosmos.com domain name. A three member WIPO panel also found that this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Attorney John Berryhill successfully defended the domain name. This is the second time John defended Kosmos.com, as another company lost its 2015 UDRP filing.

In reading through the UDRP decision that was published today on the WIPO website, it is very clear why the panel found in favor of the registrant and ruled it was RDNH. For one thing, the domain registrant owned the domain name prior to the existence of the complainant. Without the benefit of a time machine, the registrant could not have acquired the domain name in bad faith. Here’s what the panel wrote:

Recent Posts

Questions Related to Uni —> Afternic Parking Migration

If you are a Uniregistry customer, you most likely received an email explaining the upcoming migration of the Uniregistry Market and parking platform to...

Some Uni-Registered New gTLDs Will be Transferred to 1API

I received an email from Uni (formerly Uniregistry) that I initially thought was a Whois verification email and almost ignored. It was, in fact,...

Advice and Resources for a Newbie Domain Investor

Someone reached out to me on Twitter seeking advice for selling domain names. In a short tweet thread, I shared a few thoughts and...

AI.com Now Forwarding to ChatGPT Website

Early this morning, Andy Booth tweeted about AI.com, asking if the domain name was acquired by ChatGPT. Andy presumably asked because the AI.com domain...

Markmonitor Highlights Job Openings

Last week, GoDaddy layoffs impacted 8% of its workforce around the world. I am sure there are quite a few experienced people seeking new...