It looks like a UDRP was filed against https://t.co/1tWA9dHQ5m and https://t.co/wlPCjHdTyN at NAF. Both domain names are registered at CSC and owned by IBM. pic.twitter.com/aE6xTXYG2F
— Elliot Silver (@DInvesting) March 4, 2025
A week and a half ago, I noticed a UDRP filing that appeared to be pretty egregious. A company filed a UDRP against ResourceInteractive.com and Resource.com at NAF. I think Resource.com is a 7 figure descriptive one word .com domain name. Both of those domain names have long been owned by IBM, a $225+ billion publicly traded company.
The UDRP decision was published this morning, and in an unsurprising decision, the panelist, Ivett Paulovics, ruled in favor of IBM. In addition, a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding was made. Incidentally, IBM’s counsel did not even request this finding, so it was as clear cut of an RDNH as they come.
In order to win a UDRP, the complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, the respondent has no legitimate rights to the domain name, and the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It can’t just prove one element – it must prove all three.
In many UDRP filings that end in RDNH, the complainant was able to at least prove the first element but failed to prove the last two. The third element – registration and usage in bad faith – is generally impossible to prove if the domain registrant owned the domain name before the complainant even existed. This impossibility is why some of these UDRP filings end in RDNH because that is something a complainant should know is impossible to prove before filing the UDRP.
In this particular case, the Panel ruled that the complainant couldn’t even prove one element of the UDRP.
“Complainant represented by Paul Proffitt”
Looks like this one is a llossss.
USPTO shows several registrations for RESOURCE
Resource.com does not resolve
Whois privacy is used – so who knows who owns Resource.com
Why not take a chance and hope there is no response ?
Am I missing something here ?
this is very unique.
Maybe an attorney like Ari Goldberger or John Berryhill wants to chime in
Someone who is going to use a legal maneuver to secure a million dollar + domain name should do a little research. They could pay for a DomainIQ or DomainTools account to see who has historically owned it. If they didn’t want to pay a fee for a historical Whois search, they could use the free Archive.org to see how it had been used:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230307071323/https://resource.com/
After all, they needed to state the domain name was registered AND is used in bad faith. Firstly, they would *need* to do some research to understand when it was registered to make that claim. Secondly, I don’t think non-usage should be considered used in bad faith.
Of course..
I am not trying to rationalize
the last snapshot reference on archive.org was nearly 2 years ago… and just because any domain is redirected to IBM.com does not mean IBM owns it.
And god knows how many udrp filings the respondent fails because they were not using the domain at all.
I understand what you’re saying, but it is the duty of the complainant to know these details to attest to the fact the domain names are infringing.
Further, I am pretty certain the complainant learns of the registrant after the UDRP is filed, and the complainant can withdraw the UDRP filing once it sees this information and understands the argument will be impossible to prove.