Complainants from China tried to recover 74 domains, that they claim were stolen, using a UDRP complaint and failed.
And it is only natural that it failed. UDRP was not designed for recovering stolen domain names. It might be a cheap and easy way to recover a stolen domain name but it is not the proper way.
While stretching the UDRP can be useful it might also be very dangerous. Applauding the abuse of the UDRP is not wise in my opinion as the UDRP can be and is abused in various ways by both Complainants and Panelists.
The Complainants said that Respondent hacked into the Complainants’ GoDaddy accounts and changed the registrant information for the disputed domain names to the Respondent’s personal information without the knowledge or consent of the Complainants. Moreover, the Respondent has attempted to sell the disputed domain names to interested buyers. (BTW the domain names in question are still in GoDaddy and have not been transferred to some other registrar so it should have been pretty straight forward to prove the theft. If there is a theft then it was performed somewhere around September 2016. Not sure what is going on here.)
The Complainants had no relevant registered trademarks and claimed that the disputed domain names are identical to unregistered trademarks in which the Complainants have rights.
The Panelist found that the complainants did not have any trademark rights and denied the complaint:
“The Panel has reviewed all of the annexes submitted by the Complainant, and has been unable to find any evidence that the key parts of the disputed domain names have been used/advertised as trademarks, i.e., to identify the Complainant as the source of goods or services under a particular mark. The Complainant only submits a conclusory allegation of common law rights without proving it has acquired trademark rights in these names to support its contention.
The Complainant provides no evidence beyond an assertion that very modest economic resources were spent on marketing the disputed domain names and they produce modest annual revenue. Furthermore, the mere assertion that the Complainants have spent economic resources in order to market the disputed domain names is insufficient by itself to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of the Policy.”
The disputed domain names were registered at various times between March 9, 2003 and June 6, 2014. Since the domain names appear to be stolen I will post them all here: