In early August, a UDRP was filed against Weeds.com, Weeds.net, and Weeds.org. As I noted when I first saw the filing, the domain names did not appear to be owned by one single entity. As a result, it seems that Weeds.net and Weeds.org were removed from the UDRP filing, so WIPO Case D2017-1517 is now showing that it is only for Weeds.com.

I just learned that the UDRP was decided, and the three person panel ruled in favor of the domain owner. In addition, the panel found that this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The domain owner was represented by attorney Zak Muscovitch of Muscovitch Law P.C., Canada.

Because of the panel’s findings in the section about registering and using the domain name in bad faith, it looks like the panel took a pass on ruling about the domain name being identical or confusingly similar as well as whether the domain owner had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In the section about registering and using the domain name in bad faith, the panel did not find in favor of the complainant.

There are several reasons for why the panel found that the domain name was not registered and used in bad faith. For owners of descriptive dictionary .com domain names that are available for sale, the following excerpt from the decision is notable:

A company called Kitchens to Go filed a UDRP against the valuable KTG.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization. This UDRP filing is WIPO Case D2017-2241.

KTG.com has a creation date of February 22, 2001, where it was picked up on the drop as Archive.org shows some entries prior to that. The domain registrant appears to be an entity with an address in Belize. When I visited KTG.com this evening, I was forwarded to a Domain Holdings inquiry page, indicating the domain name is likely listed for sale. I don’t see any public sales history for this domain name on NameBio.

The complainant in this case is a company called Kitchens to Go. Obviously the acronym of KTG would explain why Kitchens to Go would want to own this domain name. I took a brief look at the company’s website, and I do not see any references to “KTG” on the homepage. On the

There’s a peculiar UDRP filing at the World Intellectual Property Organization that I noticed last night. It looks like a UDRP was filed against the Viking.com domain name, and it is WIPO Case D2017-2174.

A Whois search shows that Office Depot, Inc. is the current registrant of Viking.com. DomainTools shows that Office Depot has owned Viking.com since at least 2004. It looks like Viking.com forwards to viking-direct.co.uk, which appears to be a separate brand from Office Depot. This Viking-branded website also sells office products, and based on the currency shown to visitors, my guess is the target audience is UK-based buyers.

The complainant in the UDRP is listed as Aurelius RHO GTM Development Limited. I had never heard of the company before, so I did a Google search to see why the company may have filed a UDRP, and here is where I was confused. According to this press release from 2016 published on Business Wire, “Office Depot, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODP) today announced that it intends to sell its European business to The AURELIUS Group.” Looking further down the press release in the section about Office Depot, it says “The Company operates under several banner brands including Office Depot, OfficeMax, Grand & Toy, and Viking.” There is also a Wikipedia page about Viking, and it seems to connect the complainant and the respondent.

A January 2017 press release on the Aurelius website says “AURELIUS Equity Opportunities SE & Co. KGaA (ISIN: DE000A0JK2A8) has completed its acquisition of the European operations of the U.S. company Office Depot, Inc.” This press release also mentions the Viking brand: