Greenberg & Lieberman Scores RDNH Finding

Stevan Lieberman of Greenberg & Lieberman scored a reverse domain name hijacking decision in the UDRP case. The case was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the decision was published online this morning. The owner of is Warren Weitzman of Caramba LLC.

In the response to the UDRP, Greenberg & Lieberman listed 16 contentions to the UDRP. Three  of those contentions include the following summarized points:

  • China ready is a descriptive term
  • The domain name owner has been using the domain name for PPC advertising, which is a legitimate business model
  • Dictionary terms and common phrases can be used by domain name owners

In addition to these contentions, the respondent also listed a legal decision in its response that the domain owner had received from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. I found that particularly interesting.

Aside from the thorough response filed by the respondent, I thought the discussion of reverse domain name hijacking was most interesting:

In this case, the Complainant correctly identified that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in 2006. However, as stated by the Complainant, the earliest date of its registration or use of the CHINA READY mark was in 2012. As such, the registration of the Disputed Domain Name could not have been in bad faith. This point is specifically discussed in paragraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 that “[n]ormally speaking, when a domain name is registered before a trademark right is established, the registration of the domain name was not in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s non-existent right”. In the light of the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant could never have prevailed and that it is unlikely that this obvious deficiency in its case could have been overlooked by the Complainant, who is represented by counsel.

This is a pretty solid finding that other domain owners will likely reference in future UDRP cases involving domain names that were registered prior to a complainant’s own domain registration.

This is a good UDRP decision for domain owners to keep in mind when threatened or hit with a 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. Good work Stevan…most good attorneys would have won this I admit, but RDNH is a nice bonus. At last a panel whom understands the spirit of bad faith claims. However without financial penalty RDNH is almost a useless slap on the wrist.Bring on UDRP reforms that ensure consistency and protection for registrants…ggg

  2. Methinks the price of has just gone up after this opportunistic grab by China Ready represented by lawyers who should have known better.

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts UDRP Decision is Upsetting

Last night, I saw that WIPO had posted an update regarding the UDRP. is a domain name registered in 1996, and I...

CEO of Shares Domain Name Acquisition Learnings

Jordan Fried is the owner of some exceptional domain names. A few of the domain names he owns include,, and This...

Taking a Blog Break

I have been writing articles on my blog since 2007. I have been fortunate to have the advertising support of many domain industry companies...

Some Thoughts About 2023

As the year winds down, I have been thinking about what to expect for the upcoming year. I am hopeful that it will be...

How I Am Preparing for the New Year

Less than a week remains in 2022. This is generally a quiet week in terms of domain name sales, so I tend to spend...