A UDRP was filed against the SimplePlan.com domain name at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). The complainant in the UDRP is the company associated with the rock band called Simple Plan. According to NameBio, the SimplePlan.com domain name was sold for $1,675 in October of 2021 at GoDaddy Auctions.

According to the information in the decision that was just published, the band had owned SimplePlan.com for 20 years. It appears that the domain name expired due to some issues with renewing the domain name. Here’s an excerpt from the complainant’s contention regarding the expiry:

Last week before the Christmas holiday, the Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC) announced that Zak Muscovitch was added to its Domain Name Dispute Resolution panel:

CIIDRC is pleased to announce that Zak Muscovitch has joined CIIDRC’s Domain Name Dispute Resolution Panel. Mr. Muscovitch’s profile can be found at: https://t.co/7KUb5mGUSW pic.twitter.com/uSmZV0O9oj

— CIIDRC (@ciidrc) December 24, 2021

This appointment means Zak will serve on UDRP and CDRP panels that come before the CIIDRC. This is noteworthy because quite a few panelists have backgrounds working on behalf of trademark interests or are working at law firms that represent trademark interests in domain name disputes. There are not many domain name dispute panelists who have domain investors as clients.

The Empower.com cybersquatting lawsuit was upsetting to me as a domain investor. Not only did the Defendants own Empower.com before the Plaintiff’s Empower Retirement brand existed, but one of the Defendants was a company called Empower Geographics (the other was the principal at that company). Put simply, it felt like the well funded retirement brand was bullying the smaller domain registrant who had put his domain name up for sale because they didn’t like the price to buy the asset.

James Iles published an article on Tuesday after Jamie Zoch informed him that Empower.com changed hands. The domain name transferred to CSC under Whois privacy, a corporate domain name management firm used by many large companies, including Empower Retirement. James speculated that the domain name was acquired by the retirement brand.

The company behind the MetaMask cryptocurrency wallet, Consensys Software Inc., filed a UDRP against the MetaMask.com domain name. The UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and it is WIPO Case D2021-3337. The decision was published today, and the sole panelist (Adam Taylor) ruled in favor of the domain registrant.

The popular MetaMask cryptocurrency wallet operates on the MetaMask.io domain name. With an abundance of scams and schemes, it is pretty obvious why Consensys Software would want to control the MetaMask.com domain name. In the factual background section of the decision, an alleged contact by the domain registrant was cited and the registrant denied he was the person who initiated contact:

In October, a UDRP was filed against Lumos.com at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). Lumos.com had sold in a NameJet expiry auction the prior year for $22,722. The three member panel ruled on the UDRP today, and not only did the panel rule in favor of the domain registrant, but the panel ruled that it was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). You can read the decision on the NAF website.

The complainant in the UDRP is a company called Lumos Telephone LLC, which does business as Lumos Networks. The company uses the LumosNetworks.com and Lumos.net domain names for its business. Obviously, Lumos.com would be an upgrade for the complainant.

SNCF Voyageurs, the French national railway company, operates a public transport service in France called TER (Transport express régional). The company filed a UDRP against the valuable TER.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The decision was published today, and the UDRP was denied.

While it almost always seems that a complainant in a 3 letter .com UDRP is overreaching to nab a valuable asset via legal means rather than purchasing it, I thought the complainant may have had a puncher’s chance of winning this case. From my vantage point, the biggest issue for the domain registrant was the existence of pay per click (PPC) links related to the complainant. Here’s what the complainant reported: