UDRP denied, but no RDNH

A UDRP for a major domain name.

Major.comA single member World Intellectual Property Organization panel has denied a UDRP filed by Major Wire Industries Limited against the owner of Panelist Christopher S. Gibson declined to find reverse domain name hijacking, though.

Major Wire Industries has been around since the 1800s, and decided to go after some 130 years after it was founded (and 20 years after was first registered).

The company tried to buy the domain name, but didn’t approve of the $115,000 price tag on the valuable domain name. I found its claim around this rather amusing:

A representative of Complainant then successfully contacted a representative of Respondent to inquire about acquiring the Domain Name. Respondent, through its representative, Sergei Arsentiev, then offered to sell the Domain Name for USD 115,000. Complainant states that Respondent did not provide a breakdown of this fee or any explanations as to why the requested amount was so high. Complainant has estimated that the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name are USD 30 per year, meaning that since registration, Respondent would only have spent USD 150 for the Domain Name.

Hmm, let’s see. Why could’s price be “so high”? The complainant already argued that the current domain owner wasn’t the original, so the argument that “respondent would only have spend USD 150 for the Domain Name” doesn’t hold water. Click here to continue reading… UDRP denied, but no RDNH

Panelist tells complainant to go fly a kite.

A single member National Arbitration Forum panel has denied a UDRP filed on the domain name, but has not found complainant Kite Solutions, Inc. guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

Kite Solutions just got a trademark on “Kite” last year, and was registered in 1995. It was pretty much a slam dunk case for the domain name owner, but this case introduced some interesting discussion of what happens when a domain name is leased. Click here to continue reading…

Organizer of “Great Run” events engaged in reverse domain name hijacking

Panel finds that group brought was attempting to reverse domain name hijack

Nova International Limited, the company that organizes the Great Run series of events, has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in a UDRP for

The complainants use the domain name, which it registered in 2002.

Panelist Gabriela Kennedy gave three reasons she believes Nova International brought its case in abuse of the policy: Click here to continue reading…

Verisign wants patent for “Searchable Web Whois”

Company files patent application for improved whois searching across multiple registries.

Verisign has filed a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a “searchable web whois”. The application was filed in 2012 and just published today.

The patent application suggests that current whois search, especially across multiple registries, is hard. It claims that current services only search a single registry per search request, it’s difficult to index whois records in real time, it’s hard to make sense of whois data compared to other types of indexed documents, and parsing words in domain names is a challenge.

While these things are difficult, I imagine some whois services will argue that they’re doing a pretty good job of it.

The application goes on to explain Verisign’s better system. I can’t quite figure out how it solves all of the problems the company identifies, at least any better than what other companies have already done. Perhaps this is one of those patents with a few unique claims. You can be the judge: Click here to continue reading… owner can keep domain name despite not responding to UDRP

Owner of loses case against

Language instruction service Chinesepod Limited, which uses the domain name, has lost a UDRP against the owner of

It’s a case of a “typo” also being a common word.

The owner of didn’t respond to the UDRP, but ChinesePod didn’t convince a World Intellectual Property panelist of the merits of its case. Although the parked page at consists of lots of links to language instruction, ChinesePod made an amusing assertion and shot itself in the foot.

The company said that, because a Google search for ChinesePot returned results related to Chinese porcelains and cooking recipes, this was somehow indicative of bad faith by the domain name owner.

Surely this assertion was somehow lost in translation?

The panelist also dismissed ChinesePod’s allegation that using whois privacy is a sign of bad faith, and that the respondent knew of the complainant when it registered the domain name.

The issue of Chinese Marijuana didn’t appear to be discussed in the case.