Company Files UDRP Against 20 Year Old (Updated)

A UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against the generic, 20 year old domain name. The UDRP is WIPO Case D2016-2549. has a creation date of May 31, 1996, making this domain name 20 years old.  The domain name was privately registered for quite some time, but it came out of privacy in 2014. It looks like the domain name is being used for a website to document news reports of sexual abuse involving ministers.

I looked through to see how the domain name was previously used. The first entry was from October of 2002, and it looks like the content on the homepage is very similar to what is being displayed now. Further, there is a hit counter on that entry that shows a start date of 1997. There are various entries between 2002 and 2016, including this, this, and this, and all of those entries show  a similar looking website. On the bottom left of the website it says, “UPDATED AS OF AUGUST 2003.” It would seem that the  website has been operated by the same entity for many years.

The complainant in this UDRP case is listed LYMI, Inc. d.b.a. Reformation. I did a Google search for that company name, and I saw that the UDRP  was most likely filed by the company that operates (per the terms page). Interestingly, on the Who We Are page, it says the company was “Created in 2009.”

In order to prove a UDRP, the complainant must not only prove that the domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, but it also must prove that the domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.  I don’t see how that will be possible if the company was created in 2009 and the domain name has had what appears to be the same or a similar looking website since at least 2002.

Of course, I might be missing something as  I am not privy to any private details, so we shall see what the details are once the decision is rendered. I will be keeping my eye on this UDRP.

Update: Complaint was denied despite respondent not responding to the UDRP.

Elliot Silver
Elliot Silver
About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has closed eight figures in deals. Please read the Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest. Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn


  1. One question my friends: If someone opens a UDRP against a domain that i have and it is for sale, is it considered “bad faith” from my side ?
    i mean, can the company win the UDRP just because i´m seeling the domain ? is it bad faith :/ ?

  2. I also believe this person is trying to steal the domain.

    I see the complainant received 2 TM’s in 2012 (applied for 2011) for apparel.

    The complainant sells clothing to the elite in LA and NY. Including Taylor Swift and Rihanna. They state they have revenue of $ 25 mil.

    Cofounder – www. vogue .com/13367179/reformation-eco-fashion-ethical-label/

    Will the investor be embarrassed –
    www. en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Karlie_Kloss

    Since, they consider themselves designers, I wonder if it would bother them if someone stole their designs?

    Will the fashion media mention LYMI/Reformation if they end up on Rick’s Hall of Shame? ( www. HallofShame .com)

    I hope the domain owner hires one of the IP lawyers like – Stevan Lieberman or John Berryhill.

    This is the kind of UDRP filing that annoys me. Some small web designer minding his own business. Not bothering anyone. Now, he has to spend up to $ 5k to defend his ownership. He probably told them he was not interested in selling so they are trying to steal it from him.

  3. Domains are not like twitter accounts. You can’t just take a domain because the owner is not actively using it. Sounds like an open and shut case in favor of the respondent.

    • I am the Respondant and current registrant of This UDRP complaint came to my attention just today when hostmetro shutdown my website after a letter from an attorney from the trademark owner. I have private registration of the domain because of the ‘controversial’ if not inflamatory, content of the website. In the past (1996-1998) I received a lot of angry email from people.

      I was never notified by the registrar of the UDRP complaint. But I see now that the UDRP complaint was resolved in my favor because of the lack of ‘bad faith’ on my part, which was a correct conclusion. This website is solely and completely directed since 1996 to religious and public policy issues, not women’s clothing of the trademark owner. I also see that the trademark owner accused me of hosting malware, which is incorrect because Trend Micro on my laptop has never notified of any security problems when I access the website and I would think that the hosting company would detect that too.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Recent Posts

.Bet Domain Name Acquired for 5 Figures, Reportedly Resold for $600k

According to a tweet from Identity Digital (formerly Donuts), the domain name reportedly sold for $600,000. I have not verified or researched the...

Finalize a Deal by Connecting on LinkedIn

When I agree to a negotiated deal on a platform like Dan or Sedo, I have always held the expectation that the payment will...

Google Ads Selects Squadhelp for Case Study

If you have visited a Squadhelp landing page, chances are good that you have seen their advertising when you visit other websites that have...

Reliance is “More than Metal” Following Upgrade

Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. has existed as a business for more than 80 years and is publicly traded under the RS ticker symbol...

What to do with an Unused Domain Name

A person who has long owned a 3 letter .com domain name reached out to me to try and sell it. It's a nice...