The Intricacies of WIPO Case D2020-3529: A Study in Domain Name Dispute and RDNH

The case of WIPO D2020-3529 revolves around the disputed domain name “affron.com.” Pharmactive Biotech Products, S.L. was the complainant in this case, and the respondent was HugeDomains.com. The decision, rendered on March 23, 2021, by a panel consisting of Alexiev, Assen (Presiding), Touriño, Alejandro, and Willoughby, Tony, denied the complaint, marking an important decision in the realm of domain name disputes and Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

In this case, the respondent maintained that the domain name “affron.com” was used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and they were unaware of the complainant prior to the complaint. The respondent, a recognized reseller of Internet domain names, owned a substantial portfolio of domain names, including many that consist of generic names or surnames. The domain name “affron.com” was acquired in October 2013 when its previous owner let it expire. The respondent justified this acquisition based on the commonality of “Affron” as a first and last name, believing it to be of interest for business or online activities for individuals with that name.

The respondent refuted any allegations of registering and using the disputed domain name in bad faith. They argued that the complainant’s AFFRON trademark was neither distinctive nor unique and that “Affron” has been a common name for centuries, not exclusive to the complainant. This case highlights the complexity surrounding domain names that coincide with common names or surnames.

Regarding the specific criteria of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the panel found the domain name to be identical to the AFFRON trademark, fulfilling the first condition. However, when considering whether the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the panel noted that holding domain names for resale, including those consisting of personal names or surnames used by different unrelated persons, can be considered bona fide under the UDRP. The panel found no evidence that the respondent was aware of the complainant and its trademark when registering the domain name or had any intention to target the complainant specifically.

Lastly, the panel assessed the claim of registration and use in bad faith. The evidence did not support the notion that “Affron” was uniquely associated with the complainant or that the respondent was aware of the complainant at the time of registration. Consequently, the panel concluded that the respondent had not registered the domain name in bad faith.

The decision in WIPO Case D2020-3529 is a testament to the intricate balance between protecting trademark rights and recognizing legitimate interests in domain names, especially those that align with common names or terms. The case serves as a nuanced example in the field of intellectual property law, particularly in the context of domain name disputes and the principle of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

The case of WIPO D2020-3529 revolves around the disputed domain name “affron.com.” Pharmactive Biotech Products, S.L. was the complainant in this case, and the respondent was HugeDomains.com. The decision, rendered on March 23, 2021, by a panel consisting of Alexiev, Assen (Presiding), Touriño, Alejandro, and Willoughby, Tony, denied the complaint, marking an important decision in…