Company might have a trademark dispute, but not a cybersquatting one.
A UDRP panelist has found that a company that sells body armor filed a cybersquatting complaint in bad faith.
MAJA Holdings, LLC owns a business called ArmorIQ, which operates at ArmorIQ.com. It filed the dispute against the owner of ArmorIQ.ai, which provides security and authorization technology for artificial intelligence tools.
The dispute was essentially a trademark complaint that was shoehorned into UDRP and was outside the scope of the policy.
Panelist Jeffrey Neuman noted that the domain was registered before MAJA filed any trademark applications. It appears the ArmorIQ.com website was in its infancy when the .ai domain was registered.
MAJA did not address the obvious issue with the dates, nor did it provide evidence of common law trademark rights predating the registration of ArmorIQ.ai.
Oddly, its 2025 trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was filed on an intent-to-use basis.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, Neuman wrote:
…Here, the record reflects that the disputed domain name was registered prior to Complainant’s trademark filings and registrations. This timing issue presents a significant weakness in Complainant’s case and one that Complainant either knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint. Complainant has also failed to provide evidence of common law rights predating the domain name registration.
In addition, the evidence demonstrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide business offering that is distinct from Complainant’s goods and services. This is not a case involving passive holding, impersonation, or other indicia typically associated with cybersquatting. Rather, it is a dispute between parties operating in different fields who each assert some interest in a similar term.
Despite these circumstances, Complainant proceeded with a Complaint that does not meaningfully address the timing issue or Respondent’s asserted legitimate use.
As panels have repeatedly held, including in Swisher International, Inc. v. Hempire State Smoke Shop, FA 1952939 (Forum July 27, 2021), the Policy is not a substitute for trademark litigation and should not be invoked where the dispute falls outside its limited scope.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Complainant should have recognized that this dispute, involving competing claims and a plausible good faith use, was not well suited for resolution under the Policy.
MAJA represented itself, and Igor Motsnyi of Motsnyi Legal represented the domain name owner.
Leave a Comment