Complainants get one shot at UDRP and need to put their best foot forward.
UDRP provider FORUM, aka National Arbitration Forum, published two UDRP decisions this week that show why complainants need a legal representative.
In both cases, the complainants submitted bare-bones disputes. And both complainants found out that panelists aren’t going to do the complainant’s work for them.
In Progressive Plans, Inc. vs. John Tollefson / ProPlans, it appears the Complainant was represented by the company’s CTO. It went after the domain ProPlans.com.
The panelist published Progressive Plans’ “brief submissions”, which apparently didn’t mention that the company has an active website at ProPlans.build.
Panelist James Bridgeman SC wrote:
In a very brief Complaint, with little explanation or narrative, Complainant asserts that it has used the PROPLANS trademark at least since November 14, 2023, when the mark was registered.
However, Complainant has not produced any description or evidence whatsoever of its claimed use of the mark or reputation in the marketplace.
He considered asking the Complainant for more information but decided that would prejudice the other party.
The domain owner didn’t respond to the dispute.
Oddly, the Complainant stated that the domain was registered in 2023 after the Complainant had trademark rights in ProPlans. The Whois record for the domain shows it was registered in 1996, and there’s no explanation for the 2023 date.
Regardless, Bridgeman denied the case.
The other case was Grand Complications N.V. vs. ong lai huat for two domains the Complainant said were trading on its betting brand.
Panelist Alan L. Limbury published the Complainant’s arguments, which he said were basically word for word, and there wasn’t much there. He determined the domains weren’t confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
As best I can tell, the case was filed by an employee instead of outside counsel.
Perhaps the complainants in these cases had some good arguments in their favor. If so, they didn’t make them. An attorney experienced with UDRP could have told these companies they didn’t have a good case, or done a better job making their arguments.
You only get one shot in a UDRP. Complainants would be wise to give their best shot.
Both filed at ADRForum. From their homepage, you are two clicks away from filling out an online UDRP complaint form. By funneling visitors to the complaint form and fee payment, they make it very easy for people who don’t know what they are doing to file these things.