A UDRP was filed against XTM.com at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) by a company called XTM International Inc. The domain registrant did not file a response to the UDRP, but the panelist still found in favor of the registrant. The panelist in the case was Terry F. Peppard.
From what I can tell, this valuable 3 letter .com domain name does not infringe on the complainant’s trademarks with its current usage. When I visited the domain name, I could see a pretty simple landing page indicating the domain name is for sale: “[xtm.com] is for sale:
“[xtm.com] is for sale
If you would like to purchase this domain, please click here to make an offer. Or Contact us.”
While the panelist did not cite the registrant’s right to sell this valuable domain name, it was the lack of evidence provided by the complainant that doomed the UDRP. In fact, this was one of the shortest UDRP decisions I can recall reading. Here’s an excerpt from the decision:
“In the case before us, the Complaint contains only the scantiest allegations, and the only proof offered in support of those allegations consists of a copy of Complainant’s USPTO trademark/service mark registration. The evidentiary record upon which Complainant asks this Panel to reach the conclusions necessary to justify transfer of the contested domain name to Complainant is therefore woefully lacking. This failure of proof is fatal to Complainant’s request for relief.”
I would be remiss if I did not mention that it would have been nice for the panelist to mention the domain registrant’s right to own and sell a valuable LLL.com domain name as a a reason for the UDRP failing. All in all, I think the right decision was reached.
