UDRP Filed Against Weeds.com, Weeds.net, and Weeds.org (Updated)

A UDRP has been filed against Weeds.com, Weeds.net, and Weeds.org at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The UDRP is WIPO Case D2017-1517.

Interestingly, these three domain names appear to be owned by three different domain registrants. Weeds.com and Weeds.org are registered under privacy proxy, but a Whois history search at DomainTools shows that these domain names were owned by separate entities prior to the Whois record being made private, and I don’t see anything to indicate that they were sold.Weeds.net has a public Whois record that shows it is owned by Name Administration (Frank Schilling’s company). Weeds.com was registered in 1998, Weeds.net was registered in 1999, and Weeds.org was registered in 2002.

All three of these domain names are parked at Uniregistry. As one might expect based on the “weeds” keyword, these three domain names have pay per click advertising with weed and lawn care related keywords. These three domain names have some form of “for sale” notice at the top of the landing page. I would be curious if the complainant tried to buy these valuable domain names before filing the UDRP.

The complainant in this UDRP is listed as Weeds, Inc. A Google search shows a company with that name uses WeedsInc.com for its website. I am not positive that this is the company that filed the UDRP but it would be my first guess. According to the WeedsInc.com website, the company is in the weed control business.

Because “weeds” is a generic term and the monetization of all three domain names is in line with the actual meaning of the term, I don’t see how the complainant will be able to prove all three elements of a UDRP to win. I will be curious to see how the UDRP is handled assuming these three domain names are owned by different domain registrants.

I will keep an eye on this proceeding and will share an update when I learn more.

Update: Weeds.com UDRP complaint has been denied (decision not yet published). Unfortunately for the domain owner, a lawsuit was apparently filed, according to DNW.

Elliot Silver
Elliot Silver
About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has closed eight figures in deals. Please read the DomainInvesting.com 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. Weeds,inc has one TM dated 2007. first use 2007 but applied for in 2005??
    And another TM pending. Maybe more but it didn’t jump out at me. Something like 450 live TMs containing the word ‘weeds’.

    The 3 domains were registered in 1990’s.

    My money is on John Berryhill for the .net.

  2. Based on most of these arbi”traitor” decisions I would expect they will give weedsinc the names. Gee Weeds.com is showing ads for weed control etc?? go figure. As a manufacturer all I have to do is pay gargoogle to display an ad on the domain I want and then file the udrp. Simple.
    Generic my @ss, it’s showing my ads. Give me the domain. Nice system. You think they would give each respondent a chance to fix the problem rather than just awarding valuable names to thieves. Great industry we have here. Decades of nonsense using a kangaroo arbitration system that is bent towards the complaintant. imnsho.

  3. Well, in Canada with the upcoming legalization of the other type of “weed”, I would think these names have traction way beyond lawn care…

  4. The on going issues in today’s business globe. When he or she trademarked their whatever; the first thing they planted into their mind is toxic weeds. They think they own the whole globe weeds; yes they do, the toxic once.

    They registered weedsINC.com, but expected that intire weeds names and associated with it belong them

    WeedsINC= WeedsINC=stay in your lane

  5. Weeds is obviously a generic term, being used for a generic use.

    Regardless of what their trademark is, it does not give them exclusive ownership of a generic keyword for the generic use.

    This should obviously be rejected with a RDNH finding.


  6. “I will be curious to see how the UDRP is handled assuming these three domain names are owned by different domain registrants.”

    …who are represented by two different lawyers.

    When this sort of thing happens, when WIPO receives the registrar confirmation noting different registrants, then WIPO will invite the complainant to either split it up into separate proceedings or else present reasons why there is “common control” among the registrants.

  7. Personally i am really nervous about this issue as i am the owner of the domain name “weeds.for sale” purchased recently.I just sent a mail to the site Trademark247 to know more about this now.

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Fox.org UDRP Decision is Upsetting

Last night, I saw that WIPO had posted an update regarding the Fox.org UDRP. Fox.org is a domain name registered in 1996, and I...

CEO of NFT.com Shares Domain Name Acquisition Learnings

Jordan Fried is the owner of some exceptional domain names. A few of the domain names he owns include NFT.com, PuertoRico.com, and Fried.com. This...

Taking a Blog Break

I have been writing articles on my blog since 2007. I have been fortunate to have the advertising support of many domain industry companies...

Some Thoughts About 2023

As the year winds down, I have been thinking about what to expect for the upcoming year. I am hopeful that it will be...

How I Am Preparing for the New Year

Less than a week remains in 2022. This is generally a quiet week in terms of domain name sales, so I tend to spend...