Less than two weeks ago, I noticed that a UDRP had been filed against the Duggan.com domain name at the NAF. While Duggan stood out to me as a last name, what really caught my attention was a quick Whois search that showed that Duggan.com is owned by a person with Duggan as his last name. I think this fact should have made the complainant realize the UDRP will not succeed because it would seem impossible to prove the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith if the registrant’s last name is the same.
UDRP Filed Against Naturals.com (Update)
Naturals.com is now the subject of a UDRP proceeding at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The UDRP is WIPO Case D2019-2508. It looks like the UDRP was filed within the last few days.
Gap Files UDRP Against Gap.org (Updated)
GAP, the clothing retailer, has filed a UDRP against the Gap.org domain name. The UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The UDRP is WIPO Case D2019-2337.
Gap.org was originally created in April of 1997, making the domain name over 20 years old. The domain name is currently registered under Whois privacy at GoDaddy, so the current registrant is not publicly known. According to NameBio, the Gap.org domain name sold on Flippa in 2016 for $3,850. You can see the archived Flippa listing here.
HugeDomains Gets RDNH Finding on RockNCrystals.com UDRP
A UDRP was filed at WIPO against the RockNCrystals.com domain name, which is owned by HugeDomains (a company operated by Turn Commerce). The respondent was self-represented, and it won the UDRP with a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). In looking at the domain name alone, I would not have expected a RDNH finding, but in reviewing the decision, I can see why the panelist ruled in this manner.
The sequence of events that led to the UDRP filing is what caused the UDRP to fail and the panelist to rule in favor of Huge Domains. An aspect of the decision is another example of a panelist acknowledging the legitimacy of selling domain names as a business (although it is arguably not a strong endorsement):
MX.com Registrant Files & Loses ᴍx.com UDRP
MX.com and ᴍx.com look similar, but they are completely different and unrelated domain names. The first is a valuable two letter .com domain name, and the second is a IDN domain name [xn--x-x6l.com]. The registrant of MX.com (MX Technologies, Inc.) filed a UDRP against the ᴍx.com domain name, and the registrant of the IDN prevailed. The UDRP was filed at WIPO and the decision was published this morning.
Here’s what the complainant alleged as the reason it filed the UDRP citing bad faith usage of the domain name:
AVK.com UDRP: Complaint Rejected
A company called AVK Holding A/S filed a UDRP against the valuable 3 letter .com domain name, AVK.com. The UDRP dispute was filed at the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) and the decision was just published. Because of the venue, I did not notice this LLL.com UDRP filing until I saw it listed on UDRPSearch.com.
The respondent won the UDRP dispute and will keep its domain name, although it seems to have won based on a technicality rather than the merits of the case. Domain industry attorney Zak Muscovitch represented the domain registrant. Here’s an excerpt from the decision discussing why the panel ruled against the complainant: