CONTACT US

​​​​© 2018 UDRP LEGAL. All Rights Reserved

Domain Dispute Defense Services

"Track Record of success in UDRP defense cases"

In 2012 it was found that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) decided in favour of the trademark owner in 91% of all cases. On the surface it would seem that the cards are stacked against domain  owners. However there is more to these figures than meets the eye. A worryingly high proportion of domain owners fail to respond to Complaints filed against them, or appoint counsel that are unfamiliar with UDRP jurisprudence. 

The degree to which domain owners are able to defend themselves is the single most significant factor in determining the outcome of domain dispute cases. 

Our goal is to bring balance between legitimate domain investors and trademark owners. If you believe your domain name has been registered in good faith, we encourage you to fight for it. 

Here are a few key points to keep in mind: -

 

(1) Do Not Be Intimidated: Just because a party that files a complaint against you has a trademark, this in no way suggests that they have a superior right to the domain name then you do. Sometimes overzealous trademark owners and lawyers fail to carry out due diligence which would bring to light your legitimate registration.

 

(2) Act Quickly:  Remember that you only have 20 days to respond to the Complaint or you could risk losing your domain name. It is imperative that as soon as you receive notice of a domain dispute against your domain name that you begin to collate any evidence such as domain purchase invoices or documentation that demonstrates your preparations to use, or use of the domain name.

The Arbitrator and the Complainant will only attempt to contact you with the email that is on the WHOIS record so it is important this information stays up to date. If you receive the Complaint late or your time is almost dissolved, do not despair,  We are experts in relation to the UDRP Policy and know what it takes to pull apart a Complainant’s argument.  It is never too late within the 20 day period to prepare a response.

(3) Fight for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking*: Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name. In other words it is using the policy to bully a legitimate owner out of a domain name.

(4) Allow us to Assist YOU: We understand the needs of our client’s who can range from individuals, small start ups to bigger e-commerce companies and the costs of defending a domain dispute with the help of a high street law firm could seriously leave you out of pocket. That is why we only charge a small flat fee to provide you with a full response and all supplementary evidence to successfully defend your domain.

*NOTABLE CASES

(Reverse Domain Name Hijacking)

PlugandPlay.com

"The Complainant failed to investigate these obvious difficulties, and its Supplemental Filing then overlooked facts that were available even in the Response and its attachments" 

Plug and Play, LLC V. Matt Morris

(represented by UDRP LEGAL)

Neurones.com

"The Administrative Commission considers in addition that the complaint was brought in bad faith by the applicants and constitutes an abuse within the meaning of section 15 (e) of the Rules.“

Neurones SA V. Amine el Bissouri

(represented by UDRP LEGAL)

Airlineonline.com

"Complainants come to this proceeding with unclean hands. In a court exercising equitable jurisdiction, Complainants would have been tossed out on their ear because of their unclean hands."

Efzed Pty Ltd V. AviaDesign Ky

(represented by UDRP LEGAL)

Rpglife.com

Finally, it should also be said that it was the Complainant who, on no evidence at all, accused the Respondent of acting in bad faith and that there was “no plausible explanation” as to the Respondent’s use (and presumably choice) of the Disputed Domain Name.

RPG Life Sciences Ltd.v. James Mathe

(represented by UDRP LEGAL)

Croma.com

"The Panel finds that the Complaint was an unnecessary imposition upon the Respondent and an abuse of the Policy." 

Infiniti Retail Limited v. John Cromwell

(represented by UDRP LEGAL)