I was surprised when I saw a UDRP filing against the seemingly generic F45.com domain name, although I have documented plenty of UDRPs involving generic domain names. I was not surprised when I saw the domain registrant win the UDRP. That is, until I read the decision.
From what I can understand, the complainant wanted to buy F45.com and the domain name registrant was willing to sell it for $15,000. The complainant offered $12,500 and then agreed to pay the registrant’s $15,000 asking price. When it came time to finish the deal, the domain registrant had some issues accessing the domain name at Name.com. As a means to solve the problem, he suggested that the complainant file a UDRP, which he would not oppose.
Here’s the excerpt from the decision, which can be found on WIPO’s website:
The Respondent responded on June 15, 2017 with a long email explaining a difficulty he was having accessing his account with the Registrar, who was not communicating with him. “At this moment I do not know what to do and how to get back access to my domains.” He went on to say that he understood that he needed to instruct a lawyer to help him resolve the issue, but did not have enough money to do so. He then suggested that the Complainant could bring a complaint under the Policy; he would not participate in the process; and on winning the case and obtaining transfer of the Domain Name, the Complainant could pay him $10,000. His email concluded as follows:
“I know all this may look weird, but that’s all I can offer so far, until I return access to my account at Name.com. I ready to provide my documents (ID, passport), sign any contracts and I will accept any help in this matter. If you have any other ideas on this topic or questions please ask, I will reply within 24 hours. P.S. Again, please forgive me for the long response and for the level of my English.”
The UDRP panelist, Tony Willoughby, ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that the complainant was unable to prove that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It seems fortunate for domain investors that the panelist ruled this way rather than trying to appease the parties, which could have potentially been used by subsequent complainants.