Panel returns a terse decision. At least it correctly denied the case.
Perhaps the panel though it was deciding a Uniform Rapid Suspension case, not a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy case.
That’s the only explanation I can come up with for a three-member National Arbitration Forum panel turning it what is effectively a 78-word explanation of its decision (pdf) in a UDRP for WellPath.com.
The rest of the decision, which is also quite short, explains that the panel was only considering one of the three prongs of UDRP and was denying reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH).
Then there’s the summary of the “Complainant’s Additional Written Statement”, which clearly also includes an assertion made by the Respondent about reverse domain name hijacking—and referred to it as RDMH.
To be fair, it was a simple case. Dead on arrival. The domain was registered well before the Complainant, Wellpath Holdings, Inc., claimed trademark rights in the term WellPath. It argued the mistaken belief that this was a case of cybersquatting because “Respondent registered the wellpath.com domain name with the intent to sell the disputed domain name to a subsequent holder of the WELLPATH mark.”
Which is why it’s perplexing that the panel didn’t find reverse domain name hijacking.
The decision doesn’t even say which of the three panelists—Diane Thilly Cabell, David Einhorn, John Upchurch—was presiding.
How about some quality control?