The Intricacies of the Domain Name Dispute Case D2018-2290 and the RDNH Verdict

In the domain name dispute case D2018-2290, adjudicated under the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the dynamics of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) were brought to the forefront. This case centered around the domain name ubux.com, involving UBUX Pty Ltd as the complainant and Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jeffrey DeWit, Revasser Ventures LLC as the respondent.

Case Background

UBUX Pty Ltd, an Australian company incorporated on September 6, 2017, filed the complaint. The company claimed rights in the UBUX trademark, registered in Australia and pending in the United States. By November 2018, UBUX operated a website with a holding message for an upcoming app.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 25, 2004, significantly predating the complainant’s incorporation and trademark registration. The respondent used the domain for a website featuring sponsored listings for various services.

Contentions of the Complainant

UBUX Pty Ltd argued that the disputed domain name was identical to their distinctive trademark. They alleged that the respondent’s use of the domain for a parked page generating revenue from advertisements was illegitimate. The complainant claimed that the domain name’s use would lead to confusion among its customers and harm its business and brand.

Contentions of the Respondent

The respondent contended that the complainant provided no evidence of current use of the “Ubux” name and that the complainant’s rights likely did not predate its incorporation. They argued that their registration of the domain name predated any rights the complainant may have had by over a decade. The respondent also denied any bad faith in registering or using the domain name, emphasizing that they had no knowledge of the complainant at the time of registration.

Panel’s Decision

The panel evaluated the case based on the three elements outlined in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP):

Identical or Confusingly Similar: The panel found that the domain name was identical to the complainant’s trademark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests: The panel determined that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain name, which corresponded to a common prefix and suffix used in medical fields and was part of a business model focusing on short domain names based on dictionary terms or acronyms.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith: The complainant’s failure to establish the second element was fatal to their complaint. The panel found no evidence of bad faith registration or use of the domain name by the respondent.

Conclusion and RDNH Finding

The panel denied the transfer of the domain name to the complainant and found that the complaint was an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking. This decision highlighted the importance of establishing legitimate rights and interests in domain names and underscored the challenges in proving bad faith registration and use in cases where the domain name predates the complainant’s trademark rights.

This case illustrates the complex legal and ethical considerations involved in domain name disputes, especially in instances where claims of reverse domain name hijacking arise​

In the domain name dispute case D2018-2290, adjudicated under the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the dynamics of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) were brought to the forefront. This case centered around the domain name ubux.com, involving UBUX Pty Ltd as the complainant and Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jeffrey DeWit, Revasser Ventures LLC as…