No Joke: UDRP Filed Against (Update)

A UDRP was filed against the generic one word domain name at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) today. The case can be found via (confirmed on the NAF website), and it is case #1890577. You will note that this article is being published on April 2, so it is not an April Fool’s Day joke. was created in January of 1997, making it over 23 years old. The domain name is currently registered under privacy proxy at At the time of publication, does not resolve to an active website of any sort.

Using DomainTools Whois History tool, I was able to see that the domain name recently transferred from NameCheap to While at NameCheap, the domain name was also registered under Whois privacy. Using NameBio, I can see that was reportedly sold at Sedo on March 10, 2020 for a reported $5,750.

Because the NAF does not report the name of the UDRP complainant until a decision is rendered, it is unclear who filed the UDRP. Because it is a generic one word .com domain name, it is unclear why a UDRP was filed against this domain name. It does not appear to be in use yet by the registrant, so I don’t know how registration and bad faith can be proven.

I will keep my eye on this UDRP to see how it is decided.

Updated: The UDRP was decided in favor of the complainant, but it had reportedly been stolen from the complainant. From the decision:

“The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent acquired the Domain Name, which was approximately March 1, 2020 Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s JOKING.COM mark. In the absence of any response by Respondent, the Panel accepts Complainant’s evidence that Respondent fraudulently hacked into Complainant’s account for the purpose of transferring the Domain Name to itself (without Complainant’s permission), in order to sell the Domain Name on a public website for a profit. Such conduct could not be carried out other than with awareness of Complainant. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent because Respondent, immediately after fraudulently transferring the Domain Name from Complainant to itself, offered to sell the domain name (and indeed apparently sold the Domain Name for $5,750, though transfer has not occurred due to this issue) through a public auction. A general offer for sale can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) (“A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

Furthermore, a respondent stealing a registration from a complainant, as appears to have occurred in this case, also amounts to bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Stepp Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1686520 (Forum Sept. 9, 2016) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) in a respondent’s apparent hacking into a complainant’s account and stealing registration of the disputed domain.).”

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. No trademark seems to exist for joking. It is generic, as you mentioned. Yet, the registrant needs to provide a proper response or pay an attorney to respond for them. Frivolous cases still have costs for the domain owners. This type of udrp abuse is unacceptable.

  2. Just as before, some one wants the domain but is not willing to pay the price or the old owner doesn’t want to sell it to them. Before this it is not open for UDRP since it is already an old domain. And then when it is sold, they think that they can own the domain trough UDRP process.

  3. Perhaps it was stolen and then fraudulently sold on Sedo. Maybe the innocent buyer on Sedo refused to give it/sell it to the victimized owner and now the victimized owner is using the wrong mechanism to get his or her domain name returned.

  4. The auction ended on 03/10/20 but the whois hasn’t been updated since then. I’m guessing the transaction hasn’t gone through. I thought it was a good price at the time for the buyer.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Recent Posts

Rookie Mistake: Reading Expiry Lists at Breakfast

Every morning, as early as I am awake, I look through domain name expiry lists to see what is coming up for auction. I'll...

GoDaddy Auctions Running NameFind Auctions

GoDaddy is running a featured auction via its GoDaddy Auctions platform with domain names from its NameFind portfolio. While I would argue the domain...

Spaceship Hits 1 Million DUM – Only 13% of New Registrations are .com

Earlier this morning, Richard Kirkendall shared that Spaceship hit the 1 million Domains Under Management (DUM) mark. Richard is the Founder of Namecheap and...

Converse.CO UDRP Decision Turns on Price Inference

In general, I thought UDRP panels have gotten past the issue of pricing as it relates to generic / descriptive one word domain names....

Ebbs and Flows of Domain Investing

My domain investment portfolio has grown from around 500 domain names to around 2,000 domain names in the last several years. Even at that...