Legal News

ICANN just closed its comment period related to an ongoing analysis of the effectiveness of the UDRP, and the ICA submitted a well-reasoned comment. With that in mind, I want to highlight a UDRP decision that was just published. The UDRP was filed against a valuable 4 letter brandable type of domain name that can be pronounced and is also an acronym – Mohu.com.

Mohu.com is registered to a China-based domain registrant who responded to the complaint and requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The sole panelist, David P. Miranda, Esq., ruled against the respondent, giving this valuable domain name asset to the complainant. In my opinion, based on what I read in the UDRP filing, this decision was wrong and is completely unfair to the registrant.

According to the decision, here’s some background information about the domain registrant (the bolded emphasis was added by me):

A National Arbitration Forum panel presided over a UDRP that was filed against the CyberGuard.com domain name. CyberGuard.com is owned by McAfee, the global computer security company. For whatever reason, the CyberGuard.com domain name does not resolve to a functioning website.

Not surprisingly, the sole UDRP panelist, Terry F. Peppard, ruled in favor of McAfee even though the company did not respond to the UDRP. While the decision was on point, I think the panelist should have taken it upon himself to rule that the filing was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). It does not appear that RDNH was even considered by the panelist.

When a company has a huge portfolio of domain names like HugeDomains, it is bound to see its fair share of UDRP filings. A pair of Spanish companies called Bookker Corporate S.L.U and The Graffter SL filed a UDRP against Bookker.com, a domain name owned by HugeDomains. The UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

HugeDomains, which was represented by attorney Jason Schaeffer of Esqwire.com, prevailed in the UDRP. The panel also ruled that this was Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). This UDRP decision is worth highlighting because of the pro-domain investor language from the three member panel (Assen Alexiev, Alejandro Touriño, and Jeffrey Neuman).

A UDRP was recently filed against the high value Skill.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization. Skill.com is a fully developed business, and the complainant in the UDRP is a company called Skillful Communications, Inc. You don’t often see such a valuable domain name become the target of a UDRP proceeding.

John Berryhill is a highly respected Intellectual Property attorney who has made a name for himself in the domain name industry. John has successfully defended many valuable domain names over the years, and he is one of the most knowledgeable attorneys when it comes to domain name law.

Alaska Oil and Gas Association filed a UDRP against the AOGA.com domain name, and the organization prevailed. In reading the decision, I can see both sides of the case and think it’s a tough situation. I think it was probably the right call, but I think the rationale for the decision was bad.

Alaska Oil and Gas Association previously owned AOGA.com. According to the decision, the complainant reportedly had the domain name stolen from its account at Network Solutions:

“Complainant lost control of the Domain Name via a fraudulent unauthorized transfer in 2020. In the context of Complainant’s investigation, Complainant contacted the registrar where the Domain Name had been registered, Network Solutions and the Registrar, where the account had been transferred. Complainant was informed by Network Solutions that third parties had contacted that registrar and ordered a transfer, which per Complainant was not authorised. Complainant further learned that its account with Network Solutions had been accessed several times by different people in different parts of the world. Unknown to Complainant and without authorization, one or more persons infiltrated Complainant’s domain management account and transferred the Disputed Domain to another.”

Making matters worse, the domain name was apparently sold to someone else on NameJet. According to NameBio, AOGA.com was sold $1,193 on NameJet in December of 2020. I did not participate in the auction, but I looked at historical Whois records on DomainTools and it does not appear that this domain name was ever in expired status.

It seems plausible that the domain name was, in fact, stolen from the complainant and the domain name was acquired by the registrant at an auction for $1,193. Beyond contacting the AOGA to ask about the domain name, it would have been difficult to know the domain name was stolen, particularly if the buyer did not have access to a paid account at DomainTools or DomainIQ.

Yes, the complainant most likely had the domain name stolen from its account but the current registrant bought a 4 letter acronym domain name at auction without knowing it was stolen.

This makes things a bit murky, particularly because it’s a fairly generic domain name and the complainant organization is Alaska Oil and Gas Association and not a company called Aoga.

One big issue I have with the decision is where the panelist highlights the discrepancy between the purchase price and the registrant’s asking price as if it should matter: