When I check into a hotel with my family, I usually rely on the bellhops to help me unload my car (or cab) and take my belongings to my hotel room. Dictionary.com defines a bellhop as “a person who is employed, especially by a hotel, to carry guests’ luggage, run errands, etc.” According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) database, a company called Bellhops, Inc. filed a UDRP to try and wrest control of the Bellhops.com domain name. The UDRP is WIPO case D2016-0756.
As you might expect with a keyword .com domain name like this, Bellhops.com has been registered for a very long time – over 15 years. It was created back in 2000. The domain name has been privately registered since 2010, so I am not sure who owns Bellhops.com. Visiting the domain name forwards me to a different website. I believe this is a zero click landing page based on the url I saw in my browser.
Assuming it is this company that filed the UDRP, I would imagine they will have a tough time proving all aspects of the UDRP which would be necessary to win and take possession of the domain name. I don’t know how they could prove the “domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith” when the company was founded in 2013 and the domain name was created back in 2000. They would also need to prove that the registrant “has no rights or legitimate interests” in the domain name, and I think that would likely be difficult to prove as well.
Unless I am missing something, I don’t see how the complainant will win, assuming it is the company I think it is (or even if it is a different company with the generic Bellhops name). Perhaps it is another case of a company trying to use the UDRP process to get a domain name when they were unable to buy it legitimately. We won’t know anything for certain until the UDRP decision is rendered, and I will share an update when that happens.
Update: It is not really a surprise, but UDRPSearch.com is reporting that this complaint was denied. The UDRP decision has not yet been posted, but once I see it I will be able to share more details. Here’s a link to the decision. It does not appear that a finding of reverse domain name hijacking was considered by the panelist.