0.17 Stolen Domain Names
Although Panels may be sympathetic to Complainants who have had their domain name stolen, stolen domain names are not recoverable via the UDRP per se, unless the Complainant happens to meet the standard three part-test. In this sense, the UDRP is inadequate to address stolen domain names unless the Complainant has demonstrable trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain name. This becomes particularly problematic for Complainants when the disputed domain name corresponds to a common or unregistered term, even where the Complainant may have been using it for their website for business for many years. Under such circumstances, a Complainant will have to prove common law trademark rights and that is exceedingly difficult when it comes to descriptive or generic terms.
Some disputes involving allegations of stolen domain names or fraudulent transfers may be outside of the scope of the Policy (see also 0.1 – Scope of the UDRP), e.g. when they involve material unreconcilable facts.
Since the UDRP is inadequate when it comes to stolen domain names generally, ICANN should consider creating a dispute mechanism specifically for such instances.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Indira IVF Hospital Pvt Ltd v. Indira IVF Hospital Pvt Ltd, CAC-UDRP-107301 (2025) <indiraivf.com>, Transfer
The Respondent’s claim that the disputed domain name was allegedly purchased via a Facebook group does not negate the fact that this domain name was acquired as a result of the Complainant’s domain names‘ management account being previously hacked. Based on the general legal principle that no right can arise from illegality (ex injuria jus non oritur), the Respondent’s explanation cannot absolve him of liability for the unlawful acquisition of the disputed domain name.
Sawnee EMC v. faris ALMALKI, WIPO D2024-2087, <sawnee.com>, Transfer
the Complainant submits that the Respondent illegally transferred the disputed domain name to itself by hacking the Complainant’s account with the then registrar of the disputed domain name, and then approached the Complainant with a demand for payment of USD 15,000 for its return to the Complainant. These allegations are supported by evidence and have not been disputed by the Respondent, which has not provided any plausible explanation or evidence as to how and why it acquired the disputed domain name and why its actions should be regarded as legitimate. In the Panel’s view, the above supports a conclusion that the Respondent more likely than not illegally acquired the control over the disputed domain name, targeting the Complainant in an attempt to receive financial gain by selling it back to the Complainant
Staten Island Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PC v. Jamie Licznerski, WIPO D2024-0961 <statenislandoralsurgery.com>, 3-member, Denied
The evidence is insufficient for the Panel to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent fraudulently induced the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. For this reason, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established the second and third element of the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii). Moreover… panels have tended to deny the case not on the UDRP merits but on the narrow grounds that the dispute between the parties exceeds the relatively limited ‘cybersquatting’ scope of the UDRP, and would be more appropriately addressed by a court of competent jurisdiction.” The Panel finds this case fits in that category and provides an additional basis for the denial of the Complaint.
Aleksandr Danilchuk v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Vadym Didenko, WIPO D2020-1981 <igroutka.net>, Denied
This dispute however concerns the question of who is the rightful owner of the disputed domain name and whether the Respondent has acquired it legitimately or through forgery and theft. The Policy was not designed to decide whether a domain name was taken with or without the Complainant’s knowledge or consent and to deal with allegations of forgery and theft, as there is generally no hearing available and no opportunity to examine witnesses or to conduct cross-examination. Simply put, this is not the appropriate forum to deal with these issues.