Legal News

UDRP Resources from the ICA

On occasion, I receive emails from domain registrants who have either received a UDRP notice from WIPO or NAF or have been threatened with a UDRP filing. I know a fair amount of information about the UDRP, but I do not have the legal expertise necessary to offer actionable advice about responding to a UDRP or a legal threat.

When I am asked for advice, I typically suggest that the person reach out to a domain name attorney who can offer professional advice on the threat or legal filing. There are a handful of attorneys who I have sought out advice from over the years, including John Berryhill, Jason Schaeffer, Zak Muscovitch, Stevan Lieberman, and Brett Lewis (apologies to anyone I have forgotten), depending on the circumstances. UDRP Follows $3,875 NameJet Sale

A UDRP was filed against the domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The UDRP is WIPO Case D2020-1354, and it appears to have been filed within the past couple of days.

To me, seems like a pretty generic domain name that could be used to sell “cheap stuff.” Likely because of the potential usage for this descriptive domain name, sold for $3,875 at NameJet in March of this year, according to NameBio. Based on the “” email address in the historical Whois record at DomainTools from February 26th, it appears to have been an expiry auction. In fact, was promoted by NameJet in its newsletter, even earning the honor of being one of two domain names listed in the email subject: Subject of UDRP (Updated) is a valuable 4 letter and one word .com domain name. A company filed a UDRP against at the World Intellectual Property Organization. It is WIPO case D2020-1119. has an October of 2003 creation date, making the domain name nearly 17 years old. is currently registered at Uniregistry, but the only part of the Whois record I can see is “Registrant State/Province: SINGAPORE.” The domain name had been registered under Whois privacy at Uniregistry for several years before.

SCOTUS Hearing:

Because of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments via teleconference for the first time in its history. On the docket before SCOTUS is the trademark, where seeks trademark protection for its brand, which is comprised of a generic term and the .com domain name extension. The case has been followed closely by many people in the domain name business, but particularly industry attorneys:

RDNH Finding on UDRP


D’Agostino Supermarkets filed a UDRP against at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). The decision was published this morning, and the New York City based supermarket chain lost the UDRP. In addition, the three member panel ruled that this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The domain registrant was represented by Brett Lewis of Lewis & Lin.

The UDRP failed for a number of reasons, including the fact that “Respondent by competent evidence demonstrated that “D’Agostino” is her family name.” In fact, the domain registrant also showed that her father was the original registrant of the domain name and used it for his business until transferring it to the current registrant in 2006. That alone was almost certainly enough evidence needed to win the UDRP. The fact that D’Agostino is also a relatively widely used surname was also a factor in the decision.

I think there are a couple of noteworthy excerpts in the decision for investors to note:

Dubai Aerospace Enterprise Loses UDRP


Earlier this year, I reported that a UDRP was filed against The complainant in the UDRP is Dubai Aerospace Enterprise. The UDRP was decided by a three member panel, and the decision went in favor of the domain respondent. Attorney Jason Schaeffer of represented the domain respondent, who will retain the domain name as a result.

As reported in the original article, the domain registrant acquired the domain name via GoDaddy Auctions for $126,000. Reportedly, the complainant in the UDRP offered to buy the domain name for $200,000 via a broker from GoDaddy shortly after the conclusion of the auction. From what I gather, it appears that the domain registrant was communicating with multiple parties, perhaps related to (or working with) the complainant prior to the UDRP filing. The respondent believes the UDRP is a “Plan B” filing because the attempt to acquire the domain name via negotiation had failed.

Recent Posts

Sale History of Parler Domain Name

The Parler social platform has been in the news quite a bit lately because many of President Donald Trump's biggest supporters have either moved...

Explaining the ClowPenis.Fart Forward

I received a bunch of emails over the weekend asking me about my last post forwarding to a non-working domain name - ClownPenis.Fart. If...

YouTube Founder Setting Up “Domain First Strategy” Startup Fund

Chad Hurley is the co-founder and former CEO of YouTube, which was acquired by Google for $1.65 billion. I understand that Chad is now...

RIP, John Yeomans

Kevin McKim shared the sad news that domain investor John Yeomans reportedly passed away: So, so, sad to hear of the passing of our old...

Downside of Self-Managed Landing Pages

I was chatting with a business friend yesterday, and I mentioned one of the domain names I recently acquired in the context of the...