Legal News

I was surprised when I saw a UDRP filing against the seemingly generic F45.com domain name, although I have documented plenty of UDRPs involving generic domain names. I was not surprised when I saw the domain registrant win the UDRP. That is, until I read the decision.

From what I can understand, the complainant wanted to buy F45.com and the domain name registrant was willing to sell it for $15,000. The complainant offered $12,500 and then agreed to pay the registrant’s $15,000 asking price. When it came time to finish the deal, the domain registrant had some issues accessing the domain name at Name.com. As a means to solve the problem, he suggested that the complainant file a UDRP, which he would not oppose.

Here’s the excerpt from the decision, which can be found on WIPO’s website:

A UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against the generic Glory.com domain name. The UDRP filing is WIPO Case D2017-1900.

Glory.com was created in February of 1995, making this domain name more than 22 years old. The domain name is registered to a company called MicroStrategy, Inc., a publicly traded company whose stock trades on the NASDAQ market (symbol: MSTR). The company has a market cap of nearly $1.5 billion USD. The earliest Whois history record at DomainTools is from 2002, and MicroStrategy was the registrant at that time. It is likely that the company owned Glory.com longer than that. At the time of publication, Glory.com does not resolve for me. I think this domain name is easily worth 6 figures and potentially more.

The complainant in this UDRP is an entity called Glory Ltd. I did a Google search for “Glory Ltd” and the top result was for a company that operates on Glory-Global.com. There is also a stock call-out from Google that shows (what appears to be) a related entity that uses the Glory.co.jp ccTLD domain name. Assuming this is the Glory Ltd. that filed the UDRP, it is clear why the company would want to upgrade to the valuable Glory.com domain name, but it is not clear why this publicly traded would file a UDRP for Glory.com.

When I did a Google search for the word “glory,” the complainant

In the wake of the massive breach at Equifax, I wrote about the number of domain name registrations with “Equifax” in them. Smartly, it looks like Equifax is beginning to take action to recover domain names that could potentially be used by bad actors. Equifax came under fire recently because of the domain name it used for its security website.

According to the most recent update of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website, Equifax filed three separate UDRP proceedings to recover domain names it believes are infringing on its trademarks. The three UDRP filings that have been made so far can be found here:

• D2017-1875
• D2017-1880
• D2017-1882

In total, there are 285 domain names that are listed in these three UDRP filings.

With UDRP filings, a company is able to file one UDRP for multiple domain names registered to the same entity. I did not check the

A UDRP has been filed against the high value PCO.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The UDRP filing is WIPO Case D2017-1778.

PCO.com has a creation date of January of 2000. Because it is a three letter .com domain name, this domain name was almost certainly initially registered prior to this. The Whois record for PCO.com is currently private, so I am unsure about who owns this domain name. From what I can see using the Whois History tool from DomainTools, the domain name has been privately registered for quite some time.

When I visited PCO.com today, the domain name did not resolve for me. Archive.org does not have any entries for this domain name since 2011. I looked through my email history, and I don’t see PCO.com listed for sale via any brokerage email. I also don’t see any public sales record for the PCO.com domain name on NameBio. DomainIQ values this domain name into the 6 figures.

The complainant in this UDRP proceeding is listed as PCO AG. A Google search for this company showed me that the complainant is likely the company that