Analyzing the Vudu, Inc. vs. WhoisGuard, Inc./K Blacklock Case: A Landmark in Domain Name Disputes and RDNH

In the case Vudu, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / K Blacklock (Case No. D2019-2247), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center was presented with a unique and significant domain name dispute. This case involved the domain name “vudo.com” and was a noteworthy instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

The complainant in this case was Vudu, Inc., a company based in the United States, known for its streaming services. The respondent was WhoisGuard, Inc., along with an individual, K Blacklock. Vudu contended that the domain name was confusingly similar to its VUDU trademarks, claiming that it had been used in bad faith to divert Internet users for commercial gain through pay-per-click (PPC) advertising links. However, the respondent challenged this assertion, highlighting the chronological aspects of the domain name registration and the establishment of Vudu, Inc.

The domain name “vudo.com” was registered by the respondent long before the inception of Vudu, Inc., and its trademarks. The respondent had registered other similar domain names around the same time, with the intent to offer Internet services. One such domain was “voodu.com”, used for a free email service. The respondent’s interest in “vudo.com” was primarily for its generic value, suggesting a connection to the word “voodoo”, rather than any trademark infringement.

In their decision, the WIPO panel found that the domain name was indeed similar to Vudu’s trademarks. However, the critical aspect was the timing of the domain name registration, which predated Vudu’s trademark rights. The panel concluded that the respondent could not have registered the domain name in bad faith as Vudu’s trademark did not exist at that time.

The panel determined that Vudu, Inc. had not proven that the domain name was registered and being used in bad faith. As a result, the complaint was denied. Furthermore, the panel recognized the respondent’s request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, acknowledging the impossibility of a finding of bad faith registration under the circumstances.

This case serves as a significant example within the domain name dispute resolution landscape, particularly in the context of RDNH. It highlights the importance of considering the registration date of a domain name in relation to the establishment and trademark registration of a complainant company. The decision underscores the necessity for complainants to thoroughly assess the merits of their claims before pursuing UDRP actions, as unfounded allegations can lead to findings of RDNH.

For detailed information on the case, please refer to the WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2019-2247 and the UDRPsearch – WIPO D2019-2247 – Vudu, Inc. | WhoisGuard, Inc. / K Blacklock.

In the case Vudu, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / K Blacklock (Case No. D2019-2247), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center was presented with a unique and significant domain name dispute. This case involved the domain name “vudo.com” and was a noteworthy instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). The complainant in…