The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a quick and cost-effective way to resolve domain name disputes arising from domain name registrations between parties. It is applicable to gTLDs such as .com, .net, .org and more. Whereas the countries have their own policies regarding country-based ccTLDs, for example, Nixi’s INDRP for .IN domain names, Nominet’s DRS Policy for .UK domain names and so on. Domain name registration is a unique opportunity available to any business/individual to register a domain name on a first-come-first-basis as long as the Domain Name does not violate the rights of any third party.
Value of Domain Names as assets
The three-letter (3L) Domain Names are considered highly valuable including the random combination, as a result, not even a single 3-letter .com or .in Domain Name is available to hand-register as of date. Recently, UDRP and INDRP saw a few domain name disputes filed over three-letter Domain Names, such as (prefix), (random) and (acronym).
TOX.com: In late 2022, German-based Company Tox Pressotechnik GmbH & Co. KG, which owns trademark rights in TOX since the 1980s approached the domain name registrant for the purchase of the domain name offering USD $24,000. However, when the domain name owner asked for a higher amount, the Company filed the UDRP Complainant before WIPO (case no D2022-3270). The three-member panel held: “The fact that the Respondent rejected a purchase offer from the Complainant – an offer initiated by the Complainant – is insufficient to establish bad faith. The record does not indicate that the Respondent likely targeted the Complainant’s mark in 2001, and the amount of the Respondent’s demand in 2021 does not prove otherwise. The record amply demonstrates the inherent value of three-letter ‘.com’ domain names, particularly those, such as the domain name, based on dictionary terms”.
VGW.com: Earlier in 2023, the Australian Company Virtual Gaming Worlds (VGW.co) came up with a UDRP/domain dispute Complaint before WIPO (case no D2023-0345) alleging that the domain name owner is acting in bad faith as the resulting website offers the domain name for sale at an exorbitant price of USD 150 million. The Australian Company was incorporated in 2010 and registered its Trademark in 2016, whereas the Korean domain name registrant registered the domain name in the year 2002 and kept it parked for sale. The single-member Panel held “The price that the Respondent asks for the sale or lease of the disputed domain name may be viewed as excessive, but the offer to sell a disputed domain name without additional supporting factors showing an intent to take advantage of a trademark does not necessarily indicate bad faith.” In the above-cited UDRP matters, the Panel additionally held the UDRP proceedings were brought in bad faith by the respective trademark holders in an attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of the domain name and hence, a case for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).
CGI.in: Domain name dispute / INDRP (case no INDRP/1524) upon
UDRP Lawyer: The Burden of Proof and the Risk of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in UDRP Complaints
Business Upturn got in touch with the UDRP Lawyer Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions (India), who represented the domain name registrants in all of the above matters. He adds, “A domain name could be registered not only for the purpose of legitimate use in a business but otherwise numerous domain names are held by domain name investors as an investment and offered for sale. Hence, a domain name is a valuable asset to a domain name registrant, and the mere identical or similarity to the trademark does not mean that a trademark holder can come forward with a domain dispute / UDRP complaint. The burden of proof is on the complainant to show that the domain name registrant does not have a legitimate interest and acted in bad faith. However, if it is proved under UDRP that the trademark holder came forward with a UDRP complaint without any proper grounds/evidence… it can be argued against the trademark holder as a matter of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Many well-known Indian Companies have faced RDNH decisions under UDRP, for example, Machani.com, Ceate.com, TVS.com, Croma.com, Woodland.com, Zydus.com and more.”
