Company loses UDRP against 20-year-old-domain, but maybe is shouldn’t have.

Panel believes registrant registered domain name over 20 years ago. It didn’t.

SoftwayGerman company Softway AG has lost a UDRP it filed against the 20-year-old domain name

On the surface, it appears to be a particularly egregious case.

Although Softway AG claimed it’s been around since 1989, it didn’t set up a web presence until 2007, at which point it registered

It’s at that time that Softway AG started asking the owner of if it would sell the domain name. The owner offered to sell it for $6,500.

Fast forward to 2014 and Softway decided to file a UDRP.

Based on the domain owner having registered the domain name over twenty years ago in 1993, Softway AG lost the case.

Apparently Softway’s lawyers don’t know how to use DomainTools’ historical whois tool. If they did, they would have known that the current registrant in India was not the registrant in 1993. The domain has gone through multiple owners including a Network Solutions drop (and thus direct transfer retaining the original registration date).

The current owner didn’t acquire the domain until at least late 2007 or early 2008. At that point, after Softway started using, it was in the hands of a group in India. Since then it has been registered to various groups/privacy services based in India.

Perhaps Softway AG still loses with the new dates. But presenting the correct dates to the panel (an issue the respondent clearly didn’t want to clear up) would have made a big difference.


  1. Domain Fire says

    I can’t remember the case but there was one recently that said that when you buy a domain the title and all inherent rights come with it just like any other property you might buy anywhere.

  2. Nick says

    The domain was also not being used in bad faith :

    The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in December 1993. The name currently resolves to a blank web page.

  3. says

    So now they want the .com version of their brand, why don’t they buy it from the seller and it will be good for both of them.

  4. says

    What a stupid stance taken by the author. Regardless of the age, the “company” that filed the complaint to UDRP is nothing but scum in the first place. Writing anything but them being scum is taking the side of the losers case.

    They lost, for good reason, and were not punished.

    Another victory for the scam that is UDRP.

Leave a Reply