Business makes multiple mistakes in cybersquatting dispute.
A company that helps enterprises convert and extract data from documents bungled a UDRP case, resulting in a decision of reverse domain name hijacking.
Anyformat sl uses the domain name anyformat.ai. It filed the dispute (pdf) against anyformat.com.
It appears that Anyformat sl filed its dispute despite thinking that the domain had been registered well before it existed. The domain was originally registered in 2009, and Anyformat started business in 2024. It argued that, “Respondent materially reactivated and repurposed the domain name in a manner specifically targeting Complainant and its ANYFORMAT Mark after Complainant’s rights accrued.”
The supposition that the domain registrant acquired the domain in 2009 would have made the case dead on arrival because the Complainant needed to show the domain was acquired after it launched its business.
In a way, the domain owner came to the Complainant’s rescue by responding to the dispute. This set the record straight that he acquired the domain in 2025. The domain owner said he acquired the domain for its generic meaning and took steps to partner with companies that offer document conversion technology.
What threw the Complainant’s case into disarray was that the panel felt misled by evidence suggesting the domain owner had tried to sell the domain to the Complainant. It was the Complainant who initiated discussions.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Lawrence Nodine wrote;
The evidence supports the conclusion that Complainant initiated communications to discuss a sale of the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent ever proposed a price or made any demand. Complainant’s allegations to the contrary are at a minimum misleading if not false. It was also misleading for Complainant to submit a copy of Respondent’s December 30, 2025 email without acknowledging, denying, or clarifying its prior communications with Respondent via the broker.
The Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Panel emphasizes that this finding is based on Complainant advocacy of misleading evidence. The Panel acknowledges that the timing of Respondent’s acquisition of the Disputed Domain Name may have caused Complainant to suspect foul play, but this is not an excuse Complainant’s reliance of misleading evidence.
This seems like a case that could have been winnable had the Complainant made a stronger case.
Anyformat sl represented itself internally. An outside attorney specializing in cybersquatting disputes would have quickly noticed that the domain was acquired days after the company announced a major funding round. Yes, the Respondent provided the acquisition date in the response, but it would have completely changed the Complainant’s arguments if it had known this in advance.
Hopefully, the attorney also wouldn’t have tried to mislead the panel, although we’ve seen attorneys do that many times.
It’s true that the panelist found in the Respondent’s favor on Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registration and Use in Bad Faith despite knowing the acquisition date. However, I have to wonder whether the Complainant’s attempt to mislead the panel helped push Nodine in that direction, particularly given what he wrote in the last sentence of his RDNH decision.
It’s also worth noting that BuyDomains sold the domain to the Respondent. The company is known for pricing domains like this modestly. It seems that Anyformat sl missed an opportunity to buy the .com matching its .ai at a reasonable price.
“Any format” is a widely used generic/descriptive term in the file conversion industry, which was central to the Panel’s reasoning.
The Panel found that the Complainant failed to establish trademark rights at the threshold level. There was also no evidence of targeting or bad-faith registration, even after the 2025 acquisition date was clarified.
Importantly, the Complainant (through a broker) initiated contact to purchase the domain. There was no outbound sales effort, demand, or pricing proposal from my side.
The Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding was based on the misleading presentation of evidence, as specifically noted by the Panel.
Given these findings, this was not a case that could have succeeded on the actual record. The decision was grounded in the descriptive nature of the term and the evidence presented.