UDRP can be used to recover stolen domain names but you need to prove some sort of trademark rights in the domains.
The owner of 74 domain names who claims they were stolen from their GoDaddy account has failed to recover the domain names through a UDRP.
When you look at the list of domain names, it’s not surprising:
111xin2.com 222xin2.com 333xin2.com 444xin2.com 555xin2.com 666xin2.com 7-q.com 7422.com 777xin2.com 797979.com 888xin2.com 999xin2.com bx111222.com bx222333.com bx333444.com bx444555.com bx555666.com bx666777.com bx777888.com bx888999.com cheng11.com cheng111.com cheng222.com cheng33.com cheng333.com cheng444.com cheng55.com cheng555.com cheng666.com cheng77.com cheng777.com cheng88.com cheng99.com fa888.com h1898.com hg1669.com hg1895.com hg1896.com hg1898.com hg1898.net hggjw.com hggjw.net hhhggg.com hhhggg.net hhhggg.org long00000.com long11111.com long22222.com long33333.com long44444.com long55555.com long66666.com long77777.com long88888.com long99999.com my1898.com new2.com ok888999.com sjb1122.com sjb1133.com sjb1144.com sjb1155.com sjb6699.com xin2.com xin2.net yh111222.com yh1122.com yh1133.com yh1144.com yh1155.com yh1555.com yh1666.com yh6789.com yhgj.com
UDRP can be used to get back stolen domain names. But the complainant still must show some sort of trademark rights in the domain names that were stolen. Panelists tend to be lenient on this requirement in cases of stolen domains (especially when the current domain owner doesn’t respond), but you still need to provide some sort of proof for the rather generic domains at issue in this case.
In this case, panelist Linda Chang wrote:
The Panel has reviewed all of the annexes submitted by the Complainant, and has been unable to find any evidence that the key parts of the disputed domain names have been used/advertised as trademarks, i.e., to identify the Complainant as the source of goods or services under a particular mark. The Complainant only submits a conclusory allegation of common law rights without proving it has acquired trademark rights in these names to support its contention.
The Complainant provides no evidence beyond an assertion that very modest economic resources were spent on marketing the disputed domain names and they produce modest annual revenue. Furthermore, the mere assertion that the Complainants have spent economic resources in order to market the disputed domain names is insufficient by itself to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of the Policy