A UDRP was filed against the generic one word Playhouse.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The sole panelist, Robert A. Badgley, found in favor of the domain registrant and also ruled that this was Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The decision was published this morning on the WIPO website. Zak Muscovitch represented the domain registrant.
In the decision, the domain registrant’s sworn statement about acquiring domain names as investments was published:
“I am a domain name investor and website business developer. I have been investing in domain names and building website business for about 20 years. I have never before been the subject of a UDRP proceeding. I generally only invest in descriptive one-word and two-word generic and descriptive terms. I currently have about fifty high quality and high value descriptive domain names that are comparable to the disputed Domain Name. I purchased the Domain Name as an investment or to develop into a website business, for a substantial sum. I was attracted to the Domain Name because it was a premium dictionary word domain name that I could lawfully use for a future business or possibly sell one day to a new entrant to the market looking for a suitable domain name.”
Based on what the panelist wrote in the section about bad faith registration, the statement helped to exonerate the domain registrant:
“Respondent’s expressed desire to sell this valuable Domain Name for profit does not constitute bad faith here, given the lack of evidence of targeting Complainant’s mark and, again, the fact that “playhouse” is a common word.”
One side note is that it appears the complainant (or someone else) had tried to anonymously acquire the domain name for $250,000 via DomainAgents. The domain registrant stated that the offer was made “out of the blue,” and it was of no interest to him. Strangely in the section with accusations from the complainant, it said “Respondent has sought as much as USD 250,000 to sell the Domain Name.” My interpretation is that domain registrant would not sell the domain name for $250,000 – not that he was seeking that amount.
Regardless of that, the panelist found this was a case of RDNH and the complaint was “replete with hyperbole and unsupported claims.” This was a good call, and it is another helpful decision for registrants who acquire dictionary .com domain names for investment purposes.
Without meaningful sanctions for RDNH, UDRP will continue to be abused OVER and OVER and OVER. Why not take a UDRP pop shot if your own a new registered TM? Brands will continue to use this flaud system to try and steal valuable assets away, costing millions in wasted resources yearly. ICANN needs to actually do ONE actual thing with the budget and fix RDNH before this asset class loses out to other digital assets with better economics, protections and renewal fees. I’ll put a little of every domain sale into an industry supported offensive mechanism for RDNH..
The UDRP process is not intended to be just or fair for domain holders. It’s intended to raise revenue for arbitration centers, panelists, and lawyers. Remember, the lawyers that knew, or should have known better, are paid by the hour. There is no money in fixing the UDRP system–just the opposite.
Again my simple questions…how much money is being paid to the lawyers,to the panelists,by the defendant and the time spent
And what the repercussions for filing fraudulent cases??