The Domain Name Dispute Case D2018-2545 and Its RDNH Decision

The domain name dispute case D2018-2545, adjudicated by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, presents a compelling instance of a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding. This case revolves around the domain name mountainmotorsports.com, contested between Mountain Adventures LLC, the complainant, and Privacydotlink Customer 3633923 / DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR, PORTMEDIA HOLDINGS LTD, the respondent.

Background of the Case

Mountain Adventures LLC, incorporated in 2000 and doing business as Mountain Motorsports, is engaged in retailing dirt bikes, motorcycles, ATVs, trailers, and other motorsport vehicles in the United States. The company contended that it had rights in the common law trademark MOUNTAIN MOTORSPORTS and that the disputed domain name mountainmotorsports.com, registered on May 20, 2003, was identical to its trademark.

Complainant’s Assertions

The complainant argued that its MOUNTAIN MOTORSPORTS trademark had become a distinctive identifier of its products through extensive advertising and goodwill, and the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The complainant further accused the respondent of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name, alleging it was done to divert internet users, interfere with the complainant’s business, and potentially install malware on visitors’ computers.

Respondent’s Defense

The respondent, who had held the domain name since 2003, countered that they were not aware of the complainant when they purchased the domain name. They argued that the term “mountain motorsports” is descriptive and subject to substantial third-party use in the United States. The respondent maintained that the domain name was acquired due to its inherent value and was part of a portfolio of similar domain names held for investment purposes. They denied any bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name.

Panel’s Decision

The panel, comprised of Assen Alexiev, Richard Hill, and The Hon Neil Brown Q.C., evaluated the case based on the three elements outlined in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): (i) whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) whether the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) whether the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The panel found that the complainant failed to establish that it had common law trademark rights to the term “mountain motorsports,” a descriptive term. The panel also noted that the respondent had a legitimate interest in holding the domain name, which was part of a broader investment strategy in domain names. Finally, the panel determined that there was no evidence of bad faith registration or use of the domain name by the respondent.

Conclusion and RDNH Finding

Based on these findings, the panel denied the transfer of the domain name to the complainant. Furthermore, the panel accused the complainant of engaging in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, concluding that the complaint was an attempt to coerce the respondent into relinquishing a legitimately held domain name, without evidence supporting the three essential elements required under the UDRP.

This case underscores the complexity and nuances involved in domain name disputes, particularly when common law trademarks and descriptive terms are in question. The decision also highlights the importance of substantiating claims with robust evidence, especially when asserting rights over a domain name against a backdrop of established domain name investment practices​

​​​​

The domain name dispute case D2018-2545, adjudicated by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, presents a compelling instance of a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding. This case revolves around the domain name mountainmotorsports.com, contested between Mountain Adventures LLC, the complainant, and Privacydotlink Customer 3633923 / DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR, PORTMEDIA HOLDINGS LTD, the respondent. Background of…