Sold 2 Weeks Ago for $4,190, Subject of UDRP (Updated)

A couple of weeks ago, I saw that was pending delete and would be auctioned. I liked the name because it was a mashup of two words – fin (for financial) and wise. FinWise seems like a pretty nice brand name. I did not backorder the domain name, though, because a search I did showed there is a bank called FinWise Bank, and I was concerned they could claim a right to this name, particularly because it would have a new registration date. was caught by, and the domain name was sold for $4,190. Fortunately, I did not bid on this domain name because a UDRP was filed against at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Most interestingly (to me), the UDRP was not filed by the bank I had noticed prior to the auction. In fact, the complainant in the UDRP is a company called Finwise BV. In looking at Google, it would appear that Finwise BV uses the inferior domain name for its website.

From my perspective, FinWise could be considered a mashup of two generic terms. A LinkedIn search shows quite a few companies called FinWise, so I am not sure a panel will be able to rule that the registrant bought in bad faith to capitalize on the registrant’s trademark. In addition, prior to its expiration, it looks like had been owned by a totally different financial services company in India called Finwise.

I understand why Finwise BV would want to have this domain name, but the fact that there is more than one FinWise shows that this is domain name could be considered generic in nature. In essence, why should a UDRP panel award this domain name to Finwise BV when there are quite a few other companies also called FinWise.

I will keep an eye on the UDRP.

Update: The domain registrant was represented by attorney Howard Neu, but the complainant won the UDRP. You can read the decision here.

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. Front runners probably offered the domain to the complainant before the auction was over, giving them grounds for a bad faith argument. And now the respondent would have to prove that it wasn’t him/her.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Recent Posts

Poll: Are You Going to ICANN 79?

The ICANN 79 Community Forum Meeting is coming up in a couple of weeks. The meeting will be held in Puerto Rico from March...

Domain Broker’s Ad Campaign Highlighted by X Business with a Repost from Elon Musk

When looking at domain investor Twitter, I've noticed a few promoted/advertising tweets mentioning Rob Schutz and/or I recently wrote about Rob and his...

NameJet Announces Platform Enhancements

Last Summer, NameJet made some "big changes" to its platform. In essence, NameJet appears to have become a clone of Snapnames, its sister auction...

Rationale Behind Acquisition

It's not often that we hear from the founders of a company to discuss why they spent what they did to acquire a specific...

.Bet Domain Name Acquired for 5 Figures, Reportedly Resold for $600k

According to a tweet from Identity Digital (formerly Donuts), the domain name reportedly sold for $600,000. I have not verified or researched the...