Panel: Blatant Misuse of UDRP on the Part of the Complainant

Panel: Blatant Misuse of UDRP on the Part of the Complainant

Complainants should always attach their trademark registrations, or at least official abstracts for at least one material trademark registration, especially if the date of registration is clearly material to their case, as it usually is. Apparently the Complainant, who was represented by counsel identified the Complainant’s trademarks in the Complaint, but did not identify the “date of registration” of the trademarks… continue reading commentary here.

The Internet Commerce Association invites you to join us on Wednesday, April 16 at 1 PM Eastern for a free, public Zoom webinar exploring the latest developments in the Domain Name Transfer Policy.

Moderated by ICA General Counsel Zak Muscovitch, the panel will feature expert insights from Owen Smigelski (Namecheap), Roger Carney (GoDaddy), Jothan Frakes (PLISK .COM), and Theo Geurts (Realtime Register B.V.). Together, they’ll discuss recent changes, ongoing challenges, and what to expect as transfer policy continues to evolve.

We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 5.15) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):

‣ Panel: Blatant Misuse of UDRP on the Part of the Complainant (haulpay .com *with commentary)

‣ Georgia Department of Transportation Loses Undefended Case Against ‘Massage Service’ Website (gdot .com *with commentary)

‣ Panel: Reason to Have Been Aware of the Complainant “Would be a Start” (ew .uk *with commentary)

‣ Was FREIGHTQUOTE Trademark Targeted by Freight Quote Calculator Provider? (freightquotecalculator .com *with commentary)

‣ Panel: Policy Not intended or Equipped to Resolve Accuracy of Criticism, Even if Libelous (corruptrandazza .com)

Dakota Financial, LLC v. Pavlo Karpin, Automotive Associates, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2025-0448

<haulpay .com>

Panelist: Mr. Frederick M. Abbott

Brief Facts: The Complainant asserts that it is a provider of software generally directed to electronic financial platforms that accommodate multiple types of payment and debt transactions. The Complainant has not submitted any evidence to substantiate its business activities, either online or offline. Its claims are based solely on trademark registrations at the USPTO, but it has failed to provide the registration dates for these trademarks. The Respondent provides evidence that the Complainant operates a commercial website at the domain name <haulpay .co> and that a USPTO trademark application of the Complainant was filed on November 1, 2023, serial number 98250867 for the word mark HAULPAY. The disputed Domain Name was registered on September 18, 2012, and currently resolves to a GoDaddy standard form parking page.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent did not demonstrate any preparations to use the disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that the Respondent is holding the disputed Domain Name solely to sell it at an exorbitant amount of US $500,000. The Respondent contends that starting in September 2009, they registered multiple domain names combining “haul” and “pay,” including the disputed Domain Name (registered in 2012) and others related to transportation services, such as “truckerpay .com” and “haulmatch .net.” The Respondent, founder and COO of “HaulMatch .com” since 2005, further contends that these domains were intended for a platform facilitating documentation and payments in the transport business and that the Policy does not require that a domain name resolves to an active website.

Held: The Complainant recognized that the disputed Domain Name was initially registered in 2012, long before its asserted first use of its trademark (per its application for registration at the USPTO in 2017). The Respondent could not have identified the Complainant’s trademark as a target for abuse when it registered the disputed Domain Name. The terms constituting the disputed Domain Name, “haul” and “pay”, are common terms. Trademark rights can be established in a combination of commonly used terms. Ordinarily, this requires the demonstration of acquired secondary meaning through use in commerce. The Respondent could not have been required to foresee that at some point substantially following its registration of the disputed Domain Name a third party would seek to assert rights in the combination of common terms in the disputed Domain Name so as to preclude Respondent from undertaking its initial registration. The evidence in the case file, as presented, does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed Domain Name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark.

RDNH: This case involves blatant misuse of the UDRP on the part of the Complainant. The Complainant was aware that the disputed Domain Name was registered in 2012, and that the Complainant did not in any case establish trademark rights before 2017, if that early. The Complainant knew the Respondent owned the disputed Domain Name and negotiated before filing the Complaint. The Complainant’s legal theory in its Complaint is that the Respondent should have been more accommodating in price negotiations, seeming to have concluded the Respondent’s refusal to accommodate its purchase price offer is evidence of bad faith. It is not apparent how the Complainant developed this theory. The Panel notes that the Complainant provided almost no evidentiary support for the assertions in its Complaint. The Respondent’s Response provided more evidence regarding the Complainant and its business. It appears that the Complainant sought to acquire the disputed Domain Name with the bare minimum of attention to developing a factual or legal record.

Complaint Denied (RDNH)

Complainant’s Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: Lewis & Lin, LLC, United States

Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Complainants should always attach their trademark registrations, or at least official abstracts for at least one material trademark registration, especially if the date of registration is clearly material to their case, as it usually is. Apparently the Complainant, who was represented by counsel identified the Complainant’s trademarks in the Complaint, but did not identify the “date of registration” of the trademarks.

Notably, while acknowledging that “UDRP panels may undertake limited research to confirm or supplement information provided by the parties to a dispute” the Panel “declined to undertake its own research using the USPTO database or other information sources in order to identify relevant additional information concerning Complainant because of the limited amount of relevant information furnished by Complainant”. The Panel explained that “Complainant has not provided its certificates of registration for the reference trademarks, or similar confirming evidence”. Panels are not investigators and have no obligation to fill in gaps in a party’s case, as the Panel rightly found. Sometimes a Panel however, may freely examine the trademark database, and indeed it often should, in order to verify a Complainant’s trademark registration and to determine whether any material facts were left out, such as a disclaimer or other factor which affects the Complainant’s rights, such as the trademark registration being on the USPTO Supplemental registrar.

I appreciate how the Panel succinctly and simply explained the reason why no bad faith registration was possible and why this was an abuse of the UDRP. Since the Domain Name predated the Complainant’s first use of its trademark, “Respondent could not have identified Complainant’s trademark as a target for abuse when it registered the disputed domain name”, concluding that; “the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith targeting of Complainant or its trademark rights because Complainant had no trademark rights at the time that Respondent registered the disputed domain name”.

Georgia Department of Transportation Loses Undefended Case Against ‘Massage Service’ Website

Georgia Department of Transportation v. Nate Portney, NAF Claim Number: FA2503002144054

<gdot .com>

Panelist: Mr. Debrett G. Lyons

Brief Facts: The Complainant is a government agency responsible for planning, designing, developing, constructing, maintaining, and improving state and federal transportation infrastructure in the State of Georgia while providing planning and support for other transportation systems ranging from airports to mass transit and bicycle trails. The Complainant provides transportation services in the US State of Georgia by reference to the trademark GDOT which has been registered in the Complainant’s name with the USPTO since August 25, 2020. The disputed Domain Name was registered on May 18, 2003, using a privacy service to shield the name of the Respondent. The disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a website which essentially promotes massage services under the slogan, “Girls Delivered on Time”.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name and has registered and used the disputed Domain Name in bad faith having targeted the Complainant and its trademark. In particular, the Complainant states that a website resolving from the disputed Domain Name carries advertisements to “Girls Delivered on Time”. The Complainant contends that “NameCheap is disrupting [Complainant’s] business by misleading and confusing the relevant public into believing that Girls Delivered On Time is affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by the [Complainant], when this is not the case.” Further, that the use “is clearly meant to misdirect an unwitting public towards a website that may push sex trafficking, phishing, or spreading malware.” The Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

Held: The Complainant’s submission is an amalgam of the language of paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy but does not satisfy either since, in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iii), the Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors and, in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv), there is no plausible inference of commercial gain by reason that internet users would be misled to think that Girls Delivered On Time is affiliated with, or sponsored or endorsed by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complaint must prove, as separate matters, registration in bad faith and use in bad faith. The Complainant’s earliest trademark registration was filed on March 11, 2020, seventeen years after the disputed Domain Name’s creation. However, the Complaint asserts continuous use of the trademark since its first use in commerce, with the registration indicating a January 1, 1972 first use date. While not definitive proof of first or continuous use, the evidence is consistent, and the Panel accepts that the trademark was used in Georgia long before the Domain Name’s creation.

The Panel finds that the trademark solely refers to the Complainant, and without a Response, finds no explanation for the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for massage services or otherwise. Whether the Respondent, Nate Portney, is the original owner and registrant of the disputed Domain Name is unclear on the evidence but, assuming that to be so, the question is whether he – a Californian resident – had the Complainant’s trademark in mind in May 2003. The WIPO Overview states in para 4.2 that: “[t]he applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the ‘balance of probabilities’ or ‘preponderance of the evidence’; some panels have also expressed this as an ‘on balance’ standard. Under this standard, a party should demonstrate to a panel’s satisfaction that it is more likely than not that a claimed fact is true.” The Panel could not find Nate Portney as a named Respondent in any published UDRP decision. Whilst more or better evidence may have raised a rebuttable inference of bad faith, as the Complaint was presented, the Panel is unable to draw the finding that it is more likely than not that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

Complaint Denied

Complainant’s Counsel: Katrina M. Quicker of Quicker Law, LLC, Georgia, USA
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response

Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: This case reminded me of an often ignored provision of the Policy. The Panel helpfully excerpted, inter alia, Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy:

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; [emphasis added]
According to the text of the Policy itself, preventing the owner of a trademark from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name’, is not sufficient by itself. Rather, there is an additional crucial factor to bring a Complaint within the express terms of Paragraph 4(b)(ii), a pattern of preventing trademark owners from reflecting their marks. By noting the absence of evidence of such a pattern in terms of prior decisions against the Respondent, the Panel concluded that, “whilst more or better evidence may have raised a rebuttable inference of bad faith, as the Complaint was presented, the Panel is unable to draw the finding that it is more likely than not that the domain name was registered in bad faith”.

I also want to draw your attention to a recent LinkedIn post about this case, by Doug Isenberg, a lifelong Georgia resident, where he notes that “the decision is an important reminder that, under the UDRP, it doesn’t matter how a domain name is being used today if a complainant can’t prove that it was registered in bad faith”.

Panel: Reason to Have Been Aware of the Complainant “Would be a Start”

John Chapman v. ANY-Web Limited, Nominet Case No. D00027102

<ew .uk>

Panelist: Mr. Tony Willoughby

Brief Facts: The Complainant describes himself as an IT service engineer who has practised part-time as an expert witness under the trading name “EW” since 2017. He selected “EW” as his trading name, it being an acronym for “Expert Witness.” The Complainant owns a United Kingdom trademark registration for the mark “EW” and “ew,” registered on 17 January 2025 (application filed on 27 October 2024). The Complainant uses an email address associated with the disputed Domain Name, (registered on 11 January 2025). The Respondent is a domain name investor who acquired the disputed Domain Name at a public auction for £2,500 on 2 November 2019 and has connected it to a webpage indicating that it is available for sale.

The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name constitutes an abusive registration because the Respondent offers the Domain Name for sale and demonstrates a pattern of registering domain names that correspond to well-known names or trademarks in which the Respondent has no apparent rights. The Respondent produces Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionary definitions of “ew” as an expression of disgust and as an acronym for various organizations and adds there is no evidence to show that the Complainant has ever traded as “EW”. The Respondent further contends that it owns close to 50,000 domain names, including approximately 300 two-letter “.co.uk” and “.uk” names. The Respondent claims it has never lost a case under the Policy and notes that, in one case involving the domain name <so31 .co .uk>, it obtained a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Held: If there had been any evidence before the Expert that the Respondent had reason to be aware of the Complainant’s performance as an expert witness, that would be a start, but there is none. The Complainant contends that the One in a Million case is a parallel to this one, but the trademarks of the subject of the One in a Million case were all household names. However, successfully the Complainant built his reputation as an expert witness over that short period “EW” clearly cannot have climbed into anything approaching the household name category. The Complainant has not attempted to show any use of the EW trading name in the course of trade. He has produced no business documentation featuring the trading name. The Expert is required to make his findings based on the balance of probabilities. The Expert regards it as highly improbable that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when acquiring the Domain Name.

Certainly, there is nothing before the Expert to enable the Expert to hold that the Respondent was being untruthful when it denied all knowledge of the Complainant prior to receipt of the Complaint. Expert finds that the Domain Name is an exact match for the name or mark “EW”, but the Complainant has no discernible reputation in respect of that mark and there is nothing before the Expert to suggest that the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name was unreasonable. The Respondent acquired the Domain Name by way of a public auction in the course of its business as a domain name trader for the purpose of onward sale. Paragraph 8.4 of the Policy provides that trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domain names, are themselves lawful activities. The Expert finds that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to offer it for sale in the course of its business as a domain name trader is, in itself, a fair use of the Domain Name.

RDNH: How was the Complainant’s reputation as an expert witness under the “EW” name supposed to have come to the attention of the Respondent? The Complainant does not say. There is no suggestion that the parties communicated at that time or that the Respondent witnessed his performance as an expert witness. On the evidence before the Expert, there is absolutely no evidence that the Complainant ever performed as an expert witness. He may have done so, but he has produced no evidence to show that he has done so.

On the face of it therefore, in the absence of any relevant evidence, this case was doomed from the outset and it should have been obvious to the Complainant from the outset. This was (or should have been) obvious to anybody who had read the Policy and the guidance material available on the Nominet website, and particularly to a member of the legal profession, such as the Complainant. Launching a complaint under the Policy with the knowledge that it cannot succeed is without doubt an abusive use of the Policy and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Many RDNH cases involve scenarios referred to in this industry as Plan B cases. In such cases Plan A is to try and acquire the domain name at a price acceptable to the Complainant by way of negotiation with the registrant and, on plan A failing, to launch a complaint under the Policy i.e. Plan B.

Complaint Denied (RDNH)

Complainant’s Counsel: NA
Respondent’s Counsel: NA

Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Though a .uk case, I encourage you to read this decision as it is not only informative, but an excellent example of a Panel’s clear-eyed analysis and unequivocal dismissal and RDNH finding based upon the many inadequacies of the Complaint, but it is written in a manner that is particularly explanatory to the Complainant in why he lost the case. After all, decisions are chiefly written for the loser and Panelists would do well to always bear that in mind as the Panel did here.

Was FREIGHTQUOTE Trademark Targeted by Freight Quote Calculator Provider?

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Luke Petty / Ervl, NAF Claim Number: FA2503002143055

<freightquotecalculator .com>

Panelist: Ms. Nathalie Dreyfus

Brief Facts: The Complainant specializes in logistics and supply chain services. It owns the U.S. federal trademarks FREIGHTQUOTE and FREIGHTQUOTE .COM (both registered on December 19, 2006), used in connection with its freight brokerage and information management services. The disputed Domain Name was registered on August 12, 2024, by Mr. Luke Petty, as COO of the Ervl Organization. The Respondent claims legitimate rights in the disputed Domain Name, as it is used in connection with a bona fide business offering AI-powered freight quote services. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed Domain Name solely to divert traffic from the Complainant’s website by offering competing services. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name with knowledge of the FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks and is using it in bad faith to attract consumers for commercial gain by creating confusion.

The Respondent contends that the disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FREIGHTQUOTE Trademarks. The addition of the descriptive term “calculator” distinguishes the domain, and the trademarks themselves are composed of common, generic terms widely used in the freight industry. According to the Respondent, such weak trademarks are entitled only to narrow protection, which does not extend to the Domain Name. The Respondent further contends that the disputed Domain Name was registered to accurately describe the services provided, not to trade on the Complainant’s goodwill. STB Freight Brokers, Inc. has operated the website in good faith and did not seek to trademark the Domain Name, viewing it as descriptive and generic. The Respondent maintains that the Complaint lacks evidence of any intent to confuse users or capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation.

Held: The Respondent registered a combination of dictionary terms as a domain name, and used the Domain Name for a purpose related to those terms, i.e., to provide freight brokerage services. While the Respondent’s website was functional at the time of the Complainant’s notice, the Respondent has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the business conducted via the Domain Name was bona fide or significant prior to the notice. The website’s limited functionality or lack of a clear, established business presence before the dispute weakens the claim of bona fide use under Policy 4(c)(i). Further, as established by the Complainant, the Respondent’s use is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii), because the Respondent’s website is commercial and offers similar services as the Complainant. Indeed, the Panel finds that using another’s mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant’s business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainants’ FREIGHTQUOTE trademarks when the Respondent registered the <freightquotecalculator .com> domain name and that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. By registering and using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its website, where it purports to offer services similar or identical to those offered by the Complainant, the Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site. For all the reasons mentioned above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Transfer

Complainant’s Counsel: Christopher J. Falkowski of Falkowski PLLC, Michigan, USA
Respondent’s Counsel: John P. Olson of Merchant & Gould, P.C., New York, USA

Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch:

The term “freight quote” seems to be commonly used in the freight shipping industry. A Google search shows:

As the Google search also shows, however, the term refers to a particular company, the Complainant, and happens to correspond to its registered trademarks.

In this case, the Complainant obtained trademark registrations for FREIGHTQUOTE (in connection with brokerage of freight, shipping and delivery services) and FREIGHTQUOTE .COM (in connection with information management services, namely, shipment processing, preparing shipping documents and invoices, tracking documents, packages and freight over computer networks, intranets and internets), both on the basis of Section 2(f) (acquired distinctiveness). Notably, neither of the trademarks were obtained in connection with “freight quotes” per se, a term which has a plain and generic meaning. Had the Complainant attempted to obtain coverage for the generic meaning of the term itself rather than these ancillary services, it is possible that the applications would have been denied.

That put the Respondent in a difficult position. On one hand, the Complainant had valid trademark rights. On the other hand, the Respondent was using the Domain Name in connection with its ordinary meaning, i.e. providing a freight quote calculator. Under the circumstances, what is a Panel to do? Well, the focus of a UDRP Complaint must be on determining whether a Respondent intentionally targeted a Complainant’s goodwill in its trademark. Here, the Panel found that the “Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s FREIGHTQUOTE trademarks when Respondent registered the <freightquotecalculator .com> domain name and that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith”. It is not entirely clear why the Respondent was found to have been aware of the Complainant’s marks, but assuming that was the case, did that necessarily mean the Domain Name was registered in bad faith? Ostensibly the Respondent could have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks but viewed them, as it argued in its Response, as “weak trademarks [and only] entitled only to narrow protection, which does not extend to the Domain Name”, meaning that the Respondent was free to use its Domain Name as an apt descriptor of the services that it provides.

Here is a screenshot of the Respondent’s home page:

The Panel appears to have recognized that the Respondent was using the Domain Name as descriptor of its services:

“The Respondent registered a combination of dictionary terms as a domain name, and used the Domain Name for a purpose related to those terms, i.e., to provide freight brokerage services.”

Nevertheless, the Panel expressed skepticism that the Respondent’s use was bona fide. The Panel founded that there was “insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the business conducted via the Domain Name was bona fide or significant prior to the notice”, noting “the website’s limited functionality or lack of a clear, established business presence before the dispute weakens the claim of bona fide use under Policy 4(c)(i).” This finding raises the issue of whether in order to make a finding that a business is “bona fide” under the Policy, robust functionality and an established business presence is required. Under Paragraph 4(c)(i), all that is seemingly required are “demonstrable preparations to use” the domain name in connection with a “bona fide” offering of goods or services – which is usually taken to mean a legitimate offering of goods and services (as opposed to a counterfeit one, for example), rather than what would seem to be a higher threshold of demonstrating a “significant” business, as the Panel considered.

Panel: Policy Not intended or Equipped to Resolve Accuracy of Criticism, Even if Libelous

Marc John Randazza v. Dwight Schar Victims Inc., WIPO Case No. D2025-0422

<corruptrandazza .com>

Panelist: Mr. Lawrence K. Nodine

Brief Facts: The Complainant is a United States attorney who often represents clients in cases involving free speech or intellectual property issues. The Complainant owns rights to trademark RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP (registered October 1, 2013, before USPTO), which is owned by RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP PLLC, a law firm founded and managed by the Complainant. The Complainant has represented parties adverse to the Respondent on several occasions, obtaining injunctions prohibiting the Respondent from making various false statements online about the Complainant’s clients. The Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name on November 17, 2020. On the associated website, the Respondent publishes information and commentary critical of the Complainant. The Complainant prevailed in a prior UDRP complaint against the Respondent, which transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant. See Marc John Randazza v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248477621 / Don Juravin, WIPO Case No. D2020-3041.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the disputed Domain Name to retaliate against him, explaining that “In short, [Respondent] Juravin is more than US $25,000,000 in debt, has lost his business, and is going to jail – all because of his own illegal and psychotic behavior. However, he blames Randazza for his troubles and is doing everything he can, every chance he can, to try and harm Randazza’s business and to interfere with Randazza’s recognized rights.” The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent makes misleading and false statements at the website hosted at the disputed Domain Name. The Respondent contends that his criticisms are protected by the free speech provisions of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and argues that the Complainant is attempting to misuse the UDRP proceeding to suppress legitimate public criticism about his legal and ethical conduct.

Held: Where the domain name is not identical to the complainant’s trademark, but it comprises the mark plus a derogatory term, panels tend to find that the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if such use is prima facie noncommercial, genuinely fair, and not misleading or false. Herein, the Respondent is not impersonating the Complainant. The inclusion of the term “corrupt” in the disputed Domain Name plus the very clear critical content on the related website prevents Internet users from mistakenly perceiving that the disputed Domain Name is sponsored or affiliated with the Complainant. In the present case, there is no overt commercial use of the disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s purpose is to tarnish its trademark, but the evidence does not support this contention. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent makes false accusations on the disputed Domain Name, but the Policy is not intended or equipped to resolve disputed contentions about the accuracy of critical comments, even if they are libelous. It is not the province of UDRP panels to pass judgment on such allegations; rather, claims of libel or defamation should be brought in forums that have jurisdiction over claims of that nature, see MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. William Bookout, WIPO Case No. DME2014-0008. This recognition of the limits of proceedings under the Policy is especially appropriate here, where the Parties have been engaged in a litigious feud for several years.

Complaint Denied

Complainant’s Counsel: Randazza Legal Group PLLC, United States
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented

About the Editor:

Ankur Raheja is the Editor-in-Chief of the ICA’s new weekly UDRP Case Summary service. Ankur has practiced law in India since 2005 and has been practicing domain name law for over ten years, representing clients from all over the world in UDRP proceedings. He is the founder of Cylaw Solutions.

He is an accredited panelist with ADNDRC (Hong Kong) and MFSD (Italy). Previously, Ankur worked as an Arbitrator/Panelist with .IN Registry for six years. In a advisory capacity, he has worked with NIXI/.IN Registry and Net4 India’s resolution professional.

Panel: Blatant Misuse of UDRP on the Part of the Complainant – vol 5.15