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

Over the Summer, an article was published on Quartz referencing the Hims.com domain name and how it was reportedly being used at the time:

“Earlier this week, internet users noticed that the hims.com domain name redirected to viagra.com, prompting a theory that Pfizer had nabbed the domain. The theory now appears to be unfounded (hims.com now curiously redirects to menshealth.com), but Pfizer is still right to feel the heat. After 20 years of patent-protection on Sildenafil (ED competitors like Cialis and Levitra use other active ingredients), generic alternatives like Hims have flooded the market in the past year.”

When I visited Hims.com today, I was forwarded to Google.com.

According to the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) website and also seen on UDRPSearch, a UDRP was filed against the Hims.com domain name. Because of the venue where the UDRP was filed, the complainant in this UDRP will not be publicly reported until the conclusion of the proceeding. The filing is listed as case #1810653.

The “hims” company that was referenced as a competitor to Pfizer uses the ForHims.com domain name for its website. Here’s how that company describes itself: “hims is a one-stop shop for men’s wellness and personal care providing medical grade solutions for men’s hair loss, ED, skin care, and more.” LinkedIn shows that this company was founded in 2017.

Assuming the UDRP was filed by this company (which is not a given),