Another recent UDRP case (Decision January 2018) involving a 4 letter .com domain name was the UDRP case.

The case was denied and the Complainant Voys B.V. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Voys B.V., Voys United B.V. v. Thomas Zou WIPO Case No. D2017-2136


There are news stories about the UDRP case at:

Voys B.V. tries to hijack domain name
Dutch company engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Noteworthy Domain Name Decisions for 2018

  Although the circumstances in the UDRP case for finding RDNH were different to those in the UDRP case, there were some important similarities:

Use of experienced intellectual property advisors.

In the UDRP case, it was obvious that Get On The Web did not set out to target the Complainant (Glasgow-based Coolside Limited) represented by experienced intellectual property advisors (Megan Briggs & Colin Hulme of Scottish law firm Burness Paull LLC) and therefore the complaint could not succeed because, as stated by the panelists: “…it hardly needs stating that the Respondent cannot conceivably have been aware of the existence, or even potential existence, of the Complainant or of any rights it might subsequently acquire in the name TRTL at the time of registration. Also, even when advised by GOTW's attorney as to the futility of their case, the Complainant still proceeded with the claim regardless.

In the UDRP case, the Complainant too used experienced intellectual property advisors. The WIPO panelists said: “……there is no evidence on the record that the Respondent set out to target the Complainant. With the benefit of experienced intellectual property advisors, the Complainant should have been aware that, in these circumstances, its Complaint could not succeed. However and presumably in an effort to acquire the disputed domain name with minimal cost, it proceeded with the claim regardless. This is an abuse of the Policy and the Panel therefore finds this to be a case of reverse domain name hijacking.”

In the domain name UDRP case, the Complainant (Glasgow-based Coolside Limited)  a company incorporated in 2010, over 10 years after the domain name was registered, complained that:
the Respondent (Get On The Web Limited) had “sat” on the Domain Name since March 2000 and now offers it for sale at an inflated cost.

In the domain name UDRP case, the panel took particular offense to Voys B.V.’s allegation that:
The domain name has never been used by Respondent after its registration. Since 2007, this domain name is even offered for sale. A copy of the webpage is provided as Annex 6. From this, it is evident that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the domain name

To which the panel replied:

"This is an extraordinary statement. It incorrectly assumes that

(1) non-use of a domain name of itself prevents the registrant from acquiring a right or legitimate interest and
(2) registration of a domain name for no reason other than to sell it necessarily deprives the registrant of a right or legitimate interest."

Return to homepage.