Domain Name Disputes
All gTLD domain name registrations are subject to a mandatory dispute resolution service called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (often referred to as the "UDRP"). Under the policy, trademark owners may bring an action against a domain name registrant if it believes that the domain name was both registered and used in bad faith.
The UDRP was created through a multi-stakeholder process within the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 1998 to address clear-cut cases of trademark abuse (also called "cybersquatting"). The UDRP has been described by many as a quasi-arbitration before accredited dispute providers including the FORUM and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Domain Name disputes are heard by "Panelists" at the respective dispute providers. For example, Jeff Neuman is an accredited Panelist at The Forum. He has also served on 3-member panels for cases brought at WIPO.
UDRP Cases
Select Cases which were decided by Jeff Neuman as a Panelist for The Forum:
Micros Systems, Inc. / Oracle International Corporation v. Jaron Hunter
FA2007002904294
Decided: August 18, 2020
Case involving oraclemicros.com where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
Case involving offerpaddepot.com where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
Cooper's Hawk Intermediate Holding, LLC v. Tech Admin / Virtual Point Inc.
FA1916204
Decided: November 17, 2020
Case involving coopershawk.com where Registrant prevailed and where the Complainant was found to have engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case involving google-tags.com where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
Case involving youtubeomp3dl.com and hdyoutubedownloaderfree.com where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain names in bad faith.
Case involving sailormoontv.com where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
Case involving premiumsnap.org and premiumsnap.biz where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain names in bad faith.
Case involving cold-well-banker.com involving the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the ex-spouse of a former Franchisee of Complainant. Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain names in bad faith.
Case involving sigsauerstore247.com where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain names in bad faith.
Case involving youtubeconvert.cc where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain names in bad faith.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
FA1941414
Decided: June 3, 2021
Case involving drseussenterprises.com where Complainant prevailed in demonstrating registration and use of the domain names in bad faith. Interesting aspect in this case is the domain name itself resolved to a random website that was neither associated with the Complainant nor Respondent.
Swisher International Inc. v. kirby mastrangelo
FA1969097
Decided: Nov. 24, 2021
Case involving teamheampire.com where Respondent prevailed due to the complex legal issues presented by both sides. The UDRP was intended for clear cut cases of cybersquatting (bad faith registration and use and not for cases that are more appropriate for the national courts which depend on the collection of evidence and cross examination of evidence.
.
Electrosoft Services Inc. v. TechOps / SyncPoint
FA1969515
Decided: Dec. 9, 2021
Case involving electrosoft.com where Respondent prevailed and Complainant was found liable for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Case presents factors used to determine RDNH including cases where (i) materially false evidence was submitted, (ii) relevant evidence was omitted, (iii) Complainant misrepresented the facts, (iv) no trademark rights existed at the time of the registration of the domain name, (v) there was an ulterior purpose, namely to increase negotiating leverage in settlement discussions, (vi) Complainant knew that Complaint was doomed to failure, or where (vii) the Complainant had constructive knowledge that its Complaint would not succeed.
Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Eze Emmanuel
FA1980684
Decided: Feb. 7, 2022
Case involving blakstone-forexinvest.com and blackstone-investment.com where Complainant prevailed and the names were transferred. This case examines a situation where the Registrant listed in the WHOIS claims to not be the actual registant. However, the mere unsubstantiated assertion that the disputed domain names were registered by a third party does not absolve the named registrant of a domain name from understanding and complying with its obligations under a domain name registration agreement which it “signed.” Therefore, for purposes of evaluating bad faith, the listed Registrant is responsible for the registration of the disputed domain names and their use regardless of whether it controlled such registration or use.