Panelist denies both cases but doesn’t find reverse domain name hijacking.

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has denied two UDRPs filed against common word domain names but did not find reverse domain name hijacking in either case.

Dentless, LLC, a paintless dent removal company in Texas, filed a dispute against The company uses, and is owned by another dent repair company. Dentless is a common term used in the industry.

Panelist Robert Badgley determined that the Complainant didn’t show that the domain was registered and used in bad faith:

Given the apparently widespread use of the term “dentless” in the auto repair business, it would have behooved Complainant to provide some evidence of the trademark’s actual renown. Complainant chose not to do so – even despite the Panel issuing a Procedural Order, and hence the Panel is left with some evidence that “dentless” is a common term in the auto repair industry (it is, again, used in the name of many such companies), and no evidence that Complainant’s registered DENTLESS trademark is so well known that Respondent more likely than not was aware of it and sought to unfairly trade off of it.

Badgley did not consider reverse domain name hijacking.

CollegeNET filed a case against The company uses the domain and somehow believed that it should have rights to ‘standout’ in other domain extensions.

The Complainant first attempted to buy the domain. After receiving no response, it sent a message to the domain owner with the title, “your domain name is infringing on our trademark” and this text:

I have attempted to contact you to purchase [the Domain Name]; but received no reply. I am in the process of filing a UDRP case in order to prevent your continued trademark infringement. If you would like to avoid the process please contact us at the above email address.”

Panelist Robert Badgley denied the Complaint but declined to find reverse domain name hijacking. He said the Complaint was “misguided, but not brought in bad faith”:

It appears that Complainant misunderstands certain aspects of trademark law (merely holding a domain name identical to someone’s trademark is not trademark infringement, nor bad faith per se under the Policy, notwithstanding the March 28, 2023 missive from Complainant to Respondent). It also appears that Complainant misunderstands the “bad faith” element of the UDRP. A finding that a domain name registration was done in bad faith requires a subsidiary finding that the respondent more likely than not was aware of the complainant’s trademark. Here, Complainant made no showing whatever that its mark – even though registered – was sufficiently well known to support such a finding. Complainant’s reference to “constructive notice” in the Complaint underscore this misunderstanding.

Post link: and UDRPs denied

© 2023. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact editor (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.