UDRP Panelist Christopher Gibson Has Also Ordered The Transfer Of

wipoPanelist Christopher S. Gibson that was one of the 3-member panel in the controversial WIPO case was also part of some other questionable decisions in the past. I don't think that anyone thinks this is a surprise.

The Internet Commerce Association (ICA), a non-profit advocating for the rights and interests of domain name owners and related service providers, issued a statement regarding to the November 30 decision of the WIPO Administrative Panel in the case of Camilla Australia Pty Ltd v. Domain Admin, Mrs Jello, LLC (Case No. D2015-1593). You can read the statement below.

I used to find some other questionable decisions by the panelist Christopher S. Gibson of this case. He has gone multiple times against the majority decision, has ordered the transfer of domains such as or has refused findings of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Here are a few examples I found in just one hour of research: Continue reading

UDRP Complaint For The Domain Name Denied (RDNH missed only by a slim margin)

wipoVictory! We just won the complaint for the domain name The complaint was denied by a three member panel at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Complainant didn't submit all evidence to the Panel, lied and made false allegations. They claimed that I made a 12500 Euro quote when in fact they Continue reading

UDRP Panelist: “Panels Don’t Look Kindly Upon Re-filed Complaints That Blame UDRP Panels For Their Own Ineptitude”

icannThe Hon. Neil Brown QC, a very well known UDRP panelist, wrote an article on his personal blog about "Re-Filing of a UDRP Complaint". He is commenting on a recent decision:
Reliance Telecom Limited v Domains By Proxy, LLC, Sukhraj Randhawa, WIPO Case No. D2014-0947, Disputed domain name: <>,September 11, 2014.

Here are some interesting comments he made: Continue reading

2,634 UDRPs Filed With WIPO In 2014 – Philip Morris Filed 81 Cases (+Infographic)

wipoSince the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center administered the first Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) case in 1999, total WIPO case filings have passed the 30,000 mark, encompassing over 58,000 domain names.

In 2014, cybersquatting case filings with WIPO increased by Continue reading

Meet The Attorney That Represents Attorneys In UDRPs

icannWebsite attorney Steven Rinehart recently won several new UDRP domain name disputes involving common law trademarks. Rinehart issued a press release about successfully establishing common law trademarks rights for two attorneys who were the target of libelous criticism websites (e.g. gripe sites), those domain names being <>, a California attorney; and <>, a Denver attorney.

Rinehart represents clients, with a few attorneys amongst them, in domain name disputes involving Continue reading

Potential Scandal At WIPO Involving Director General Francis Gurry

TheRegister did an article yesterday exposing allegations of bizarre and potentially illegal conduct within the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The Register obtained access to an internal report indicating reasonable grounds to suspect serious misconduct within the UN agency.

"The report, published exclusively by The Register today, outlines serious allegations against WIPO chief Francis Gurry. The organisation's staff council has also demanded a prompt and independent investigation.

An reader brought this article to my attention and he also commented that "Francis Gurry has been a flag-waver for UDRP from day one, and he has written some very one-sided papers trying to expand the power of the UDRP against domainers. He's always putting out releasing saying that cybersquatting is on the rise, even when it isn't." Continue reading

Pharmaceutical companies filing a lot of UDRP complaints

I was going through UDRP complaint fillings and noticed that a lot of pharmaceutical companies are quite active in filing complaints lately. There was always a company that was going stronger at one time or another but this time there are multiple pharmaceuticals filing 10s of UDRP complaints.

Sanofi has filed for more than 350 URDP complaints in the past 10 years. From in 2003 up until in December 2013. Sanofi has won most of the complaints with the latest being Very few UDRP complaints from Sanofi has been denied including the complaint for the domain name This was great decision that displays what a Panelist's job includes: investigation and critical thought. Good job from Panelist Susanna H.S. Leong.

Pfizer Inc. has already won 2 UDRP complaints (for and for in 2014, for a total of over 90 since 2000.

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. has won 5 UDRP complaints in 2014 and has filed a total of more than 180 complaints since 2003. I am not sure why these 5 complaints (eg. for were not part of a single UDRP complaint since all domains are registered in the same registrar, all under privacy with no real name revealed, and all include the same circumstances and the same Roche trademark. Actually 4 out 5 were decided by the same Panelist.

Apple is going after misspellings of with UDRP

Apple is going after misspellings of its official website using UDRP complaints.

Apple, Inc filed 2 UDRP complaints for the domain names (k is next l in qwerty keyboards) and (w is next to e).

The domain name was registered in 2001 and is owned by a Hong Kong company and is parked at Sedo and offered for sale. The iphone related ads may hurt the case in UDRP.

The domain name was registered in 2000 and is owned by a person in California and is parked at Bodis and is also for sale. This domain also has apple related ads.

Apple is no stranger to UDRP having filled 31 complaints since 2008. Apple has won every case. They won a couple other misspellings such as and Also the complaints for the domains and were terminated probably because the owner gave the domains to Apple.

First Ever UDRP Complaint Filed For a New gTLD Domain Name: Canyon.Bike

The first ever UDRP complaint for a New gTLD domain name was filed today, February 11th, at WIPO. The UDRP complaint with WIPO Case Number D2014-0206 was filed by Canyon Bicycles GmbH, a German bicycle company.

The domain name Canyon.Bike was registered on the 5th of February using a pre-registration order at Go Daddy for about $25. The domain is still behind whois privacy that will be removed shortly because of the dispute.

This was one of the fastest UDRP complaints I have ever seen. It took the German company less than 4 working days to file it. The fact that it is a slam-dunk case must have helped. Canyon Bicycles GmbH has a European Union trademark for the mark "Canyon" for bicycles. The mark "Canyon" was not registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. One Trademark Registration costs $150 for 1 year.

Before this complaint, a complaint was also filed for and but that was a URS complaint filed by IBM at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) on the 6th of February. NAF is the sole URS provider for now. That was the first URS complaint filled for any New gTLD domain name.

But a UDRP complaint is different than a URS one. The complaint, if successful, will result in a transfer of the domain name to the complainant.

Through the URS Procedure ICANN offers a lower-cost, faster path to relief for rights holders experiencing clear-cut cases of infringement caused by domain name registrations. The URS filling fee at the National Arbitration Forum is $375 for up to 14 domain names. The URS can only lead to suspension of the domain names. The URS will not provide the transfer of the disputed domain name to the trademark holder. If the trademark owner wants to take ownership of and use the disputed domain, it should instead file a UDRP complaint or other legal action.

So complainant Canyon Bicycles GmbH chose the UDRP complaint that costs $1500 to file so that it will take ownership of the disputed domain name.

UDRP for denied but no RDNH – Owner declined selling domain registered 13 years before trademark

*UDRP Panelist Gabriela Kennedy is also working for a law firm and often submits UDRP complaints on behalf of her customers. Her fellow Panelists decide on her cases.*

The UDRP complaint for the domain names,, and was denied but Panelist *Gabriela Kennedy* didn't make a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding and gave no explanation about her decision.

She only said:
"The Panel, on the balance, finds that the Complaint was not made in bad faith as an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

The "on the balance" part was her full discussion as to why this wasn't a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. And that was clearly a contradiction of what she said earlier on the discussion of the 2nd element of the UDRP.

The Complainant is a non-profit organization established in 2011, and based in the United States of America, that operates a free search engine via its domain name <>, for teachers and students to search for learning materials, such as multimedia resources, digital textbooks, videos, games and quizzes (“Complainant's Website”). The Complainant holds a trade mark registration for GOORU in the United States of America since March 27 2012.

The Respondent is based in Italy. The Disputed Domain Names were registered as follows: <> on December 9, 1999 and <>, <> and <> respectively on February 21, 2003. The Disputed Domain Names <> and <> currently resolve to parking pages that includes sponsored links, and <> and <> are currently inactive and resolve to a website that states that the site is under construction.

This is what the Panelist said:
"In addition, the Complainant has provided copies of email correspondences with the Respondent dated January 18, 2011 and February 22, 2013, whereby the Complainant had asked the Respondent if he was interested in transferring the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Respondent informed the Complainant that he was unwilling to transfer the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant, as he intended to use the Disputed Domain Names for his own business projects. Further, if the intent of the Respondent was to make a profit from the Disputed Domain Names, the Panel believes that it would have been logical for the Respondent to try to negotiate with the Complainant in order to sell the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant for profit. Contrary to this, the email correspondence provided by the Complainant shows that the Respondent had no desire to enter such negotiations. The Panel finds that this further supports the Respondent’s contention that he is making preparations to use the Disputed Domain Names for a bona fide offering of services, rather than to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain.

Lastly, the Panel notes that the Complainant first approached the Respondent in January 18, 2011, around the time that the Complainant was first established; over a year before it registered its trade mark GOORU in the United States of America, and 12 years after the first Disputed Domain Name was registered. The Complainant had therefore been aware of and knew that the Respondent was unwilling to transfer the Disputed Domain Names, and intended to use the Disputed Domain Names for its own business purposes, before the Complainant registered and began using the GOORU mark."

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint was denied but Gabriela Kennedy refused the Reverse Domain Name Hijacking finding.

This was a clear cut Reverse Domain Name Hijacking attempt but Panelist Gabriela Kennedy has never made a RDNH finding and she is not about to start now. More on this on another post.

*UDRP Panelist Gabriela Kennedy is also working for a law firm and often submits UDRP complaints on behalf of her customers. Her fellow Panelists decide on her cases.*