UDRP was a waste of time and money.
Here’s another example of a UDRP case that should have never been filed.
A social media marketing firm that apparently just came into existence (or at least started using its brand) in 2010 filed a case against the owner of a domain registered in 2001.
Somedia Solutions, Inc., represented by Kurt D. Olender of OlenderFeldman LLP, filed the case against the owner of Somedia.com.
The complainant uses the domain name SomediaSolutions.com. It has a registered trademark for Somedia Solutions with a first use in commerce date of 2010 and a pending application for Somedia by itself.
It’s kind of funny that a company based on Facebook and Twitter marketing, which weren’t even a figment in someone’s imagination back when this domain was registered, would think they have rights to it.
Or it would be funny if it weren’t for both the complainant and respondent lawyering up for the case. Unless it was a lawyer friend, this was a costly affair for a case that should have never been filed.
Panelist Karl V. Fink found against Somedia Solutions but ignored the question of reverse domain name hijacking.