Introduction

The UDRP procedure is an effective tool for obtaining the transfer or cancellation of a domain name registered and used in bad faith. However, it should not be used as a pressure tactic to recover a domain name that is legitimately held by a third party. Where a complaint is filed without a serious legal basis, or primarily with the aim of depriving the registrant of a domain name, the panel may find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, meaning that the complainant has used the UDRP procedure in bad faith.

The case Advice Group S.p.A. v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc. / Michele Dinoia, Macrosten LTD (WIPO Case No. D2019-2441) is an illustration of this risk.

The Advice group case: a warning against insufficiently grounded complaints

Advice Group is an Italian company founded in 2006 and specialized in marketing. It is based in Turin and also has offices in Rome and Bari, as well as subsidiaries in Bulgaria, Kosovo, Portugal, Colombia and Peru. After becoming aware of the registration of the domain name <advicegroup.com> by a third party, the company filed a UDRP complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, seeking transfer of the domain name.

The disputed domain name had originally been registered in 2005 and was later acquired by Michele Dinoia, of Macrosten LTD, in September 2014. The domain name resolved to a parking page displaying commercial links and indicating that Internet users could contact the registrant if they were interested in acquiring the domain name.

The complainant’s burden of proof under the UDRP

The Respondent did not file a response. However, the absence of a response does not relieve the Complainant of its burden of proving the three cumulative elements required under the UDRP:

  • First, that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
  • Second, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
  • Third, that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

In this case, the panel accepted that the domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Italian figurative trademark “ ” No. 2015000025292. However, this was not sufficient to justify a transfer.

The panel chose not to make a definitive finding on the issue of rights or legitimate interests, given its conclusions on bad faith. Nevertheless, it made several observations that were favorable to the Respondent. In particular, the domain name was composed of dictionary terms, namely “advice” and “group”, and the Respondent had not actively used the domain name to target the Complainant. The domain name merely resolved to a standard parking page, with a message allowing interested users to contact the registrant regarding a possible purchase.

The panel also noted that there were many companies throughout the world using the name “Advice Group”. This weakened the Complainant’s argument that the Respondent must necessarily have had the Complainant in mind when acquiring the domain name.

Bad faith as the decisive issue

The issue of bad faith was decisive. The panel emphasized that, at the time the Respondent acquired the domain name in September 2014, the Complainant had not yet registered its trademark. The trademark was filed only in June 2015 and registered in December 2016. As a result, the domain name predated the Complainant’s trademark rights.

Nothing in the evidence suggested that the Respondent had targeted the Complainant when acquiring a domain name made up of common English words. The fact that Internet users could make an offer to acquire the domain name did not, in itself, prove that the Respondent had registered it with the specific intention of selling it to Advice Group at an excessive price.

The complaint was therefore rejected.

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking: when the complaint itself becomes abusive

More importantly, the panel found that the complaint constituted a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Complainant had accused the Respondent of cybersquatting even though it had not provided evidence of targeting, and despite the fact that the domain name, composed of generic terms, predated the Complainant’s trademark registration. The panel considered that the Complainant should have known that it could not establish bad faith registration.

This decision remains highly relevant today. The updated WIPO practice, including the WIPO Overview 3.1, confirms the importance of a rigorous evidentiary analysis, particularly in relation to bad faith and abusive UDRP complaints. Panels continue to be attentive to cases where a trademark owner attempts to use the UDRP procedure to obtain a domain name that it could not acquire through ordinary commercial negotiation.

Practical lessons for trademark owners

The practical lesson is clear: where a domain name consists of generic, descriptive or common terms, proving bad faith is particularly difficult. It is not enough to show that the domain name is identical or similar to a trademark. The complainant must establish that the respondent specifically targeted its trademark, business, reputation or customers.

Conversely, certain elements may strengthen a UDRP complaint, such as trademark rights predating the domain name, reproduction of the complainant’s official website, use of the domain name for the same goods or services, fraudulent email activity, a direct offer to sell the domain name to the trademark owner, or a documented pattern of cybersquatting.

Before filing a UDRP complaint, trademark owners should therefore carefully verify the date of registration or acquisition of the domain name, the date on which their own trademark rights arose, the distinctive or generic nature of the sign, and the available evidence showing that the respondent actually targeted them.

Failing this, the complaint may not only be rejected, but may also result in a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, turning the procedure against the complainant itself.

Conclusion

The Advice Group decision serves as a useful reminder that the UDRP procedure is not intended to resolve all disputes involving a domain name. Its purpose is to address clear-cut cases of abusive registration and use, not to provide a shortcut to obtaining a domain name legitimately held by a third party.

For trademark owners, the key issue is therefore not merely whether the disputed domain name is identical or similar to their trademark, but whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the respondent specifically targeted their rights. This case thus demonstrates that filing a weak or opportunistic complaint can have consequences that go beyond the mere dismissal of the complaint.

Dreyfus law firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus law firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team.

Q&A

1.Can a trademark owner file a UDRP complaint if the domain name was registered before its trademark?

Yes, but the complaint will usually be more difficult to prove. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. If the domain name predates the trademark rights, it may be difficult to establish that the registrant targeted a trademark that did not yet exist. However, exceptions may arise where the complainant already had unregistered rights, strong reputation, or where the respondent clearly anticipated the complainant’s rights.

2.Is the UDRP the right procedure for every domain name dispute?

No. The UDRP is designed for clear cases of abusive domain name registration and use. It is not intended to resolve complex contractual disputes, business disagreements, former partnership issues, or conflicts involving competing legitimate rights. In such cases, court proceedings or negotiated solutions may be more appropriate.

3.Does a respondent have to actively use the domain name for bad faith to be found?

No. Passive ownership of a domain name may, under certain circumstances, constitute bad faith. However, passive ownership is evaluated with caution and does not automatically suffice to establish bad faith.

4.What type of evidence should be collected before filing a UDRP complaint?

A complainant should collect evidence of its trademark rights, reputation, chronology, screenshots of the website, WHOIS records, DNS records, MX records, redirections, phishing attempts, commercial links, offers for sale, prior correspondence, and any pattern of similar domain name registrations by the respondent. The stronger the factual record, the lower the risk of filing an insufficiently grounded complaint.

5.Can a domain name made of common words still infringe trademark rights?

Yes. A domain name made of common words may still infringe trademark rights if it is used to target a specific trademark owner. For example, bad faith may be found where the domain name reproduces the complainant’s branding, redirects to competing services, is used for phishing, or creates a misleading association with the complainant. The key issue is not only the wording of the domain name, but the respondent’s intent and use.