Dissecting WIPO Case D2018-0072: Rolyn Companies Inc. v. Kwangpyo Kim, Mediablue Inc.

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2018-0072 involved a conflict over the domain name “rolyn.com”. The complainant in this case was Rolyn Companies Inc., a Maryland company specializing in disaster recovery services including restoration, remediation, decontamination, infection control, disinfection, and mold remediation. The respondent was PRIVACYDOTLINK CUSTOMER 3473447 / Kwangpyo Kim, Mediablue Inc. The decision was rendered on April 4, 2018, by a panel comprising Jonathan Agmon, The Hon Neil Brown K.C., and Clive N.A. Trotman (Presiding).

The case centered on the domain name “rolyn.com”, which Rolyn Companies Inc. argued was identical to its trademark ‘ROLYN’. This trademark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and was closely associated with the company’s identity and services. The complainant, established in 1982, held various related domain names and claimed that “Rolyn” was derived from the names of the company founder and his wife, thus having a personal significance and distinctiveness.

The respondent, involved in trading domain names and specializing in generic, descriptive, and short domain names, acquired “rolyn.com” after it had lapsed from its previous registrant, Rolyn Optics Co. The domain name was initially registered on September 3, 1995, and was acquired by the respondent on October 11, 2017. The respondent argued that “Rolyn” is a common first or last name and denied any intention to sell the domain name to the complainant or disrupt its business.

In its decision, the WIPO panel had to consider whether the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant had rights, whether the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and whether the domain name had been registered and was being used in bad faith.

The panel found the domain name “rolyn.com” to be identical to the complainant’s registered trademark. However, it concluded that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain name, as it constituted a common name and was not exclusively associated with the complainant. Furthermore, the panel found no evidence to suggest that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith by the respondent.

As a result, the complaint was denied, highlighting the complexities involved in domain name disputes, especially when the disputed name is a common term or name that could be associated with multiple entities or individuals. The decision also underscores the importance of demonstrating clear evidence of bad faith in domain name registration and usage for a successful complaint under the UDRP.

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2018-0072 involved a conflict over the domain name “rolyn.com”. The complainant in this case was Rolyn Companies Inc., a Maryland company specializing in disaster recovery services including restoration, remediation, decontamination, infection control, disinfection, and mold remediation. The respondent was PRIVACYDOTLINK CUSTOMER 3473447 / Kwangpyo Kim, Mediablue Inc. The decision…