Featured Domains


7S.com Owner Can Keep Domain Name Despite Andrew Christie’s Opinion

Activist UDRP panelist at it again in 7s.com case.

If you ever need to point a finger at UDRP panelists that are trying to pervert the entire system, one of those should be Andrew Christie.

I awarded Christie a “Domain Dunce” award in 2009 for his attempts to change the plain language and thousands of cases of precedent of UDRP. He did it by circularly referencing his own cases.

Now Christie is at it again in the case of 7s.com.

The owner of the domain name had a pretty solid defense against the complaint by 7(S) Personal GmbH.

– 7s.com didn’t file trademarks until 2000 and provided no evidence that it had common law trademark rights to ‘7s’ predating that. But 7s.com’s owner registered the domain name in 1998, two years before that.

– In addition to registering 7s.com, the respondent registered a number of other short domains that included numbers in the same year: 8r.com, j4.com, 788.com, 889.com, 988.com, e88.com, e99.com. This suggests that he was registering lots of short domains like this and wasn’t targeting the German company. (After all, there’s no evidence in the case that the German company even existed in 1998!)

– The domain owner had forwarded the domain to one of his sites (geometry.net) for several years after registering it.

– It’s a generic domain name

The majority of the panel found that the domain owner had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

But not Andrew Christie. He wrote a dissent:

…Where a domain name is used simply to point to a website, I believe there needs to be some semantic relationship between the domain name and the website for that use to be bona fide. To hold otherwise would mean that pointing a domain name to any website – including to a website completely unrelated, in a semantic sense, to the domain name – will trigger a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. In my view, that type of use is not sufficient to give rise to a right or legitimate interest in a domain name. It is not a bona fide use; rather it is an arbitrary use…

But another panelist gave a great rebuttal to Christie. David E. Sorkin wrote:

I concur in the majority’s decision. I agree with the view expressed in the dissenting opinion that an arbitrary use of a domain name normally does not create rights or legitimate interests. In this case, however, we are presented with such use of the disputed domain name over a long period of time, together with the paucity of evidence that the use was pretextual or otherwise illegitimate. (The Respondent need not show that it has developed trademark rights in the domain name, but merely that the Complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent has developed any sort of rights or legitimate interests in the name). Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever that the Respondent’s selection of the domain name was motivated in any way by or targeted at the Complainant or its mark. I therefore conclude that the Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proving the requirements set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

DomainAgents. What should you sell your domain for? Read our Domain Market Report Now. Sponsored.

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.

No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions


    Leave a Comment

  1. Tim says

    Mr. Christie I would assume is being paid under the table or fed these UDRP cases b/c his notions are absurd and indicative of the subversive techniques the National Arbitration Forum ( NAF ) has been found to be guilty of.

    How disgusting of a decision my Mr. Christie.

    I’m calling the NAF out to fire him or remove him from their list of panelists.

    How pathetic.

  2. shuwix . says

    all these senseless UDRP cases should be taken to regular court as attempt of property theft (bad faith of UDRP starter is obvious) and panelists automaticly charged as assisting offener and for bribe, as it’s obvious panelist “work hard” to give unlawful and senseless decision.

    After several panelists and people filling such UDRPs will get 5-10 yrs sentences, UDRP will serve it’S purpose.

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: