Crypto World Journal Goes After CWJ.com via UDRP | DomainInvesting.com
Neustar Domain Names

Crypto World Journal Goes After CWJ.com via UDRP

15

A company called Crypto World Journal Inc. has filed a UDRP against the high value three letter CWJ.com domain name. The UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization, where it is WIPO Case D2018-1207.

CWJ.com was originally created in March of 1999. The registrant of this domain name appears to be based in China. Using DomainTools’ Whois History tool, I looked through quite a few historical Whois records for this domain name to see the provenance. Because of Whois privacy that was enabled for quite some time, I am unable to tell when the registrant acquired this domain name. It looks like it moved to the current (China-based) domain registrar in December of 2016.

When I visited CWJ.com this morning, the domain name did not resolve. Using Screenshots.com, I can see the domain name was listed for sale for low six figures in early 2016. This LLL.com domain name would be considered a “Chinese premium” or “Chip” domain name, making it quite valuable. I do not see any public sale records for CWJ.com on NameBio.

The complainant in this UDRP is a company called Crypto World Journal Inc., which appears to operate on its exact match CryptoWorldJournal.com domain name. That domain name was created in May of 2017. The LinkedIn page for this publication references CWJ several times, as does its website. The State of Delaware lists the Incorporation Date / Formation Date as February 1, 2018.

I can see why this publication would want to own the CWJ.com domain name, but I do not see how it will succeed in the UDRP filing (unless I am missing something important). CWJ.com is a valuable acronym domain name, and there are many companies and businesses that would likely want to have CWJ.com for their website. I will keep an eye on this UDRP and share an update when it has reached its conclusion.


About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has sold seven figures worth of domain names in the last five years. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest.


Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | | Facebook | Email

Comments (15)

    Richard

    Should be a home run RDNH decision for the respondent.

    June 2nd, 2018 at 10:44 am

    Michael

    And a loss of credibilty to this CryptoWorldJournal.com news site…

    June 2nd, 2018 at 11:35 am

    Ken

    Maybe if they started awarding monetary penalties on these frivolous filings, they would think twice about it

    June 2nd, 2018 at 11:48 am

      Alex Verdea

      I agree and second that!

      The complainant is hopping that maybe the respondent won’t reply?
      This is obvious abuse of the UDRP system.
      Use of scare tactics/bullying by big companies SHOULD NOT be allowed, and there should be monetary penalties against bogus UDRP filings.

      We need some sort of UDRP reform, meanwhile I hope they make it on Ricks Hallofshame.com website! 🙂

      In reply to Ken | June 2nd, 2018 at 4:40 pm

      John

      Indeed. Not much to ask for a small change involving adding a penalty to RDNH. Would still need to work out enforcement, but add a huge additional penalty if complainant fails to pay.

      In reply to Ken | June 2nd, 2018 at 4:41 pm

      Elliot Silver

      If that were to happen, it would almost be certain that a registrant would also have to pay fine if it loses a UDRP. Imagine losing a UDRP on a generic domain name and having to pay fine on top of that.

      In reply to John | June 2nd, 2018 at 4:45 pm

      John

      I would say not at all.

      The issue is use and misuse of the UDRP process, not use or misuse of a domain name. The complainant is the one who proactively uses the UDRP process. The penalties or lack thereof should apply to use of the UDRP process, *not* the domain name. Ergo, if a frivolous complainant proactively misuses the UDRP process and is determined to be engaging in RDNH, it makes sense for the only penalty involved to apply to the party who caused so much expense in time and money and inconvenience to the respondent. If a victorious complainant thinks they can win a court case over and above winning the domain, let them pursue that in the courts.

      In reply to Elliot Silver | June 2nd, 2018 at 5:08 pm

      Elliot Silver

      You might want to have a look at Zak Muscovitch’s article about this: https://dnattorney.com/for-those-that-believe-that-a-loser-udrp-complainant-should-pay/

      I think Zak is one of the top industry lawyers.

      In reply to John | June 2nd, 2018 at 5:12 pm

      John

      I’m sure he is and I’ve always liked whatever I have seen of him thus far, especially over at Michael Cyger’s former abode. I’d probably be seeking to hire him myself if the time came.

      It’s a good article. However…

      I would still say that when you make the question about use of the UDRP process itself instead of about use of the domain name, it makes sense and is just that at the very least RDNH should come with penalties.

      I will be among the first to make slippery slope arguments too, and they are valid and have their place. So yes there would probably be grumbling and “pressure” to do the same to respondents. But I would say that when you keep the focus on use of the UDRP process itself vs. the domain name, it is possible even for biased and perverse members of the UDRP “establishment” to realize that the only rationally possible penalty can attach to the “aggressor” even if they are personally inclined to screw registrants even more than registrants are already being screwed by unjust UDRP decisions.

      But is it realistic to expect this? Yes, that remains a question mark.

      It does also raise this question for me, however: prior to the great “transition” away from US oversight of ICANN, would the US government have been able to guarantee a proposal like the above, or not? Or does one have nothing to do with the other? Pardon my ignorance if the answer is already clear to others, but if anyone knows for sure that would be appreciated.

      In reply to Elliot Silver | June 2nd, 2018 at 5:46 pm

      gpmgroup

      If you’re connected with to a US and some other jurisdictions you already have the mechanism to inject costs into the process – file a lawsuit. It’s almost certainly better for the least economically advantaged that UDRP keeps away from injecting additional costs anywhere in its process. One of the most important things to fight for is the removal of bias of some decision makers.

      In reply to John | June 3rd, 2018 at 5:39 am

    John

    Filed under “what were they thinking.”

    June 2nd, 2018 at 4:38 pm

      Talkiah101

      Unlimited laughs from cats and dogs; this company is working hard for failure.

      In reply to John | June 3rd, 2018 at 10:57 pm

    Michael Gargiulo

    This is complete abuse of the UDRP system. Cwj.com, which is nullrouted, was registered in 1999 while plaintiffs domain was registered in 2017.

    RDHJ needs a defined, severe penalty or else these baseless attempts will continue, forever.

    The problem is WIPO can’t assign puntative or monetary damages. And the defendant must file a federal suit…after they loose the UDRP, if they want a counter or collect defense costs.

    How messed up these situations are becoming…

    June 2nd, 2018 at 7:09 pm

    Jonathan

    If the registrant also ownes the .cn ? ads even more credibility

    June 4th, 2018 at 3:46 am

    Lin

    Haven’t check email for a while but i will defend this for sure.

    June 5th, 2018 at 2:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *

Website