A UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization against the high value Queen.com domain name. The case is WIPO Case D2017-0679.
Queen.com is a domain name that is owned by Rick Schwartz, who is commonly referred to as the “Domain King.” According to an article written in 2013 on Rick’s Blog, he was able to acquire the domain name in August of 1997. Rick’s company owns a ton of great dictionary .com domain names, and the monetization and sale of some of these domain names has made him millions of dollars.
In the aforementioned article about Rick’s purchase of Queen.com, he shared why his company acquired the domain name. Queen.com has many different meanings. Among those meanings, and the one mentioned by Rick in his article, is adult related. As such, Queen.com is currently forwarding to an adult website, where it is likely making Rick a considerable amount of income. It seems pretty clear that buying the domain name was a good decision, as it has earned “into the 6 figures because that traffic was very valuable.”
Estibot currently lists the value of Queen.com at $1.2 million, and I would be surprised if Rick would even consider selling the domain name at that price.
The complainant in this UDRP is listed as Knud Jepsen A/S. A Google search for this company shows that it is the operator of a flower business located in Denmark. The company appears to operate on the Queen.dk ccTLD domain name.
Based on what Rick wrote in 2013 and based on his business model, it seems pretty obvious to me that Rick’s acquisition of the domain name had nothing to do with this Danish flower company. As a part of the UDRP, the company would need to prove that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. I don’t see how this will be possible.
My guess is that the company either tried and failed to acquire the domain name from Rick, or they were unhappy about how Rick is using the domain name. Whatever the case is, I would be shocked if the complainant prevails in this UDRP. I will be monitoring the status of this UDRP and will share an update when the decision is published.
Update: The panel ruled in favor of the domain name owner, who will retain the domain name. The panel also ruled this was a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Andrew Allemann wrote about the decision this morning.