As a domain investor, I think it is important to be aware of UDRP filings and decisions. While the vast majority of UDRP filings involve domain names that are infringing on popular brands and trademarks, there have been a number of UDRPs involving valuable, investment-grade domain names.
There are several helpful websites that I use to track UDRP cases and decisions. The websites I use and reference the most regularly are:
Unfortunately, it looks like my prediction about the new GoDaddy pay per click-focused landing page design was prescient. Just yesterday, I wrote “In fact, some registrants may believe this is discourteous if GoDaddy were to monetize their landing page with trademark infringing links that induce a UDRP (or worse).” It looks like this was the exact issue in the ArtPetrossian.com UDRP.
Before diving into the UDRP and its decision, have a look at the landing page on ArtPetrossian.com:
A UDRP was filed against the 4 letter DSPA.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the decision was published today. The case was decided in favor of the domain registrant, a domain investor who owns a valuable portfolio of domain names. The 3 member WIPO panel ruled this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Attorney John Berryhill represented the domain registrant in the proceeding.
The complainant in the dispute was a company called DSPA B.V., which uses the DSPA.nl ccTLD domain name for its business. According to the decision, the complainant had owned the domain name several years ago, and the registrant acquired it in an expiry auction. Coincidentally, I was one of the four underbidders in this 2017 auction on NameJet.
In this decision, the panel once again acknowledged that domain investors have a legitimate right to register short acronym domain names as investments:
The Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC) is hosting a webinar that might be of interest to domain investors. How to Win a UDRP Dispute is a free webinar featuring the Hon Neil Brown QC, Barry Penner QC, and John Rogers, C. Arb. as its keynote speakers. The webinar was announced on the CIIDRC Twitter account:
#CIIDRC Webinar Register Today – ciidrc@bcicac.com pic.twitter.com/YWQePFBxQP
— CIIDRC (@ciidrc) August 11, 2020
Andrew Allemann wrote about the DownPat.com UDRP, which was decided in favor of the domain registrant who acquired the domain name via GoDaddy Auctions for $861. Although the domain registrant won the UDRP in a decision I agree with, I think what happened to the complainant really stinks.
In looking at the Whois History at DomainTools, I see DownPat.com was previously registered to NameFind, the domain name portfolio company owned and operated by GoDaddy. The domain name appears to have been acquired by GoDaddy when it acquired Michael Berkens’ portfolio several years ago.
A UDRP was filed against the high value 1919.com domain name at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). The complainant in the UDRP is a company called 1919, LLC, and the domain registrant did not respond to the UDRP. The UDRP was decided by a single panelist, The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC, and the UDRP was decided in favor of the complainant.
At a quick glance, I was surprised to see the complainant prevail, despite the fact that the registrant did not file a response to the proceeding. I don’t recall many other UDRP cases involving short numeric domain names that were decided in favor of a complainant.
After reading the decision, there was a key finding from the panelist that likely weighed heavily on the decision:
