Pitstop.com UDRP: Whois Privacy Prevented RDNH

When I saw a UDRP had been filed against PitStop.com by a company called Distribuidora Automotiva S.A., I spent a couple of minutes checking the Whois history at DomainTools. My non-legal conclusion was that this UDRP is DOA and it will result in a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

The domain name was defended by attorney John Berryhill, and the three member UDRP panel ruled in favor of the registrant. This was not a surprise. PitStop.com is a descriptive domain name, with the “pit stop” phrase used by brands and used generically throughout the world. One entity should not have the right to control the .com domain name for a descriptive term, in my opinion.

The surprising aspect of this decision – albeit an aspect that is not important for the sake of the registrant – is that the panel did not rule this was RDNH. Notably, the respondent did not seek a RDNH finding, but the panel still discussed it given the ruling and the nature of this domain name. The reason for not finding RDNH is because of Whois privacy. Here’s what was written in the decision:

“At the time of the Complaint, the Respondent was concealing his identity behind a privacy shield. That prevented the Complainant to investigate the Respondent and ascertain his potential rights and legitimate interests and his potential bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Such a privacy shield also can hide the effective date on which a Respondent acquired or registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant had a good faith basis to be concerned when it saw its trademark being used as a domain name for pay-per-click advertising by an unnamed entity; the greater clarity that has emerged since the privacy shield was lifted and since the Respondent explained his history with the disputed domain name does not undermine the bona fide of the Complainant’s initial concerns.”

Ultimately, there is no penalty for an abusive UDRP filing, so not finding RDNH has absolutely no impact on the case. However, it would have been nice for the panel to rule that it was RDNH.