Legal News

In March of this year, OpenAI filed a UDRP proceeding against the ChatGPT.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization. OpenAI’s ChatGPT service has become one of the most popular artificial intelligence-driven chat platforms with well over 100 million users. The company uses chat.openai.com for its ChatGPT platform.

Prior to the filing of the UDRP, ChatGPT.com had been used by a website called ChatAI.com. You can have a look at how it was being used by visiting Archive.org. After the UDRP was filed, Whois privacy was lifted, and the Whois record showed the domain name was owned and used by a company in Puerto Rico called Site Matrix.

It must be concerning to receive a notice of a pending UDRP. Not only might a valuable domain name be on the line, but an investor’s reputation may also be at risk. If a UDRP is filed against one of my domain names – or even if a threat was made – I would consult with a domain name attorney.

Someone posted about receiving a UDRP notice, and I shared this recommendation. It is a good idea to get educated about trademarks and UDRP filings, but I would always work with an attorney on a UDRP defense or even a response to a threat. It’s not worth complicating my situation by responding to a UDRP or a threat on my own without getting advice from an expert.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited is the complainant in a UDRP filing against the FSGBumSniffer.gay domain name. The complaint is WIPO Case D2023-2814, and no, even though I am an Arsenal supporter, this article is not a prank.

Every once in a while, I see a UDRP filing that appears to be unwinnable. More often than not, the domain name in question is a one word or three letter .com domain name that is rightfully owned by someone but coveted by another party.

A complainant called Integrity Marketing Group, LLC filed a UDRP against the one word Integrity.com domain name at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). On appearance alone, I did not think the complainant stood a chance of winning the dispute for this high value dictionary word domain name.

The UDRP decision was published, and the three panelists ruled in favor of the domain registrant. In addition, the panel decided that this “Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.” This finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) was not surprising.

There were multiple reasons for why the panel ruled against the complainant. For one thing, the domain name was owned by the registrant before the complainant existed.

Here’s an excerpt from the decision:

Intellectual Property Attorney Gerald Levine was honored today with a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Internet Commerce Association. Mr. Levine is a noted attorney who is an expert in law related to domain names and intellectual property. Not only does Mr. Levine represent domain registrants and serve as a UDRP Panelist, but he also wrote the preeminent book on the topic – Domain Name Arbitration.

The virtual Award presentation was shared by the ICA and features quite a few domain industry veterans and IP attorney colleagues of Gerry who respect him tremendously. Congratulations to Mr. Levine on the award honoring his contributions.