2.6 Investing in Domain Names in General
Speculating in and trading in domain names when done without intent to profit from other’s trademarks can in and of itself, constitute a “legitimate interest” under the Policy – even without actually using the domain name in connection with its dictionary meaning.
Speculating in and trading in domain names can indeed constitute a legitimate interest under the Policy. Such a practice may constitute use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (i.e. the sale of the domain name itself)
Where a Respondent is in the business of investing in domain names, a legitimate interest may be found since the Complainant’s arguments as to a lack of a legitimate interest, will have been rebutted.
The business of creating and supplying names for new entities is a “legitimate activity in which there are numerous suppliers.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Dacotah Banks, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Domain Service, Inc, Forum FA2503002146901 <dakotabank. com>, Denied
Respondent, a domain name investor, bought the <dakotabank.com> domain name at auction and did so with intent to sell it to the general public, as with the similarly structured domain names <dakotastatebank.com>, <jasperbank.com> and <timberbank.com>. As noted in UDRP Perspectives (“www.udrpperspectives.org”), section 2.6: “Speculating in and trading in domain names when done without intent to profit from other’s trademarks can in and of itself, constitute a “legitimate interest” under the Policy – even without actually using the domain name in connection with its dictionary meaning…The Panel finds that Respondent has shown that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name because, as a domain name investor in similarly structured domain names who bought the descriptive <dakotabank.com> domain name at auction upon its expiry and without awareness of Complainant’s DACOTAH BANK mark, Respondent registered and is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, namely the offering of the domain name itself for sale to the general public. Speculating in and trading in domain names can indeed constitute a legitimate interest under the Policy. Such a practice may constitute use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (i.e. the sale of the domain name itself).
Lucien William Valloni v. Domain Administrator, NameFind Cayman Islands Ltd., WIPO D2024-5126 <valloni. com>, 3-Member, Denied
The Respondent submits that it is a domain name investor whose business includes the acquisition and resale of domain names corresponding to dictionary words. It has demonstrated that it acquired the disputed domain name in 2021 from a third party who in turn acquired it from the registrant who registered it in 2012 after the expiry of the Complainant’s previous registration. There is no evidence that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when it acquired the disputed domain name in 2021…
Humana Inc. v. Dns Admin, Domain Privacy LTD, WIPO D2024-3809, <humanan.com>, 3-member, Transfer
Merely registering a domain name comprised of a dictionary or generic word does not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent… Here, the Panel determines that the Respondent did not register or use the Disputed Domain Name to highlight its alleged dictionary meaning, but instead to target the Complainant and trade on the Complainant’s goodwill.
Mr. Sebastián Rodrigo (3Clics SPA) v. EROL BASAR, CAC-UDRP-106334 (2024), <3clicks.net>, Denied
The evidence presented confirms that the Respondent actively engages in the registration and resale of domain names composed of generic terms – a practice that is recognised and can be accepted within the domain industry… The Respondent, for its part, explains its rationale for its purchase and its offer to sell the domain name, comprising matters unrelated to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has failed to make a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP Policy.
All Star C.V., Converse, Inc. v. Narendra Ghimire, WIPO DCO2024-0014, <converse.co>, 3-member, Transfer
Respondent rightly defends that the Policy does not prohibit a domain name owner from charging a buyer any price it wishes, but that misses the point, which is that, when combined with Respondent’s admitted awareness of the famous Mark, the price is a window into Respondent’s probable intent. The Panel does not deny that there could be purchasers willing to pay the set price based on the dictionary, geographic, or surname meanings, but the Panel finds that this is not probable in the circumstances of the present case. The Panel notes that Respondent has disclosed it purchased the Disputed Domain Name for USD 306, and, the Panel simply finds it implausible that Respondent immediately directed the Disputed Domain Name to Afternic, placing it for sale for approximately USD 300,000, merely in consideration of the dictionary value of the term “converse”.
Academy, Ltd. v. Ramesh Singh, ForumFA2301002026883 <redfield.com>, 3-member, Denied, RDNH
Investing in common-word domain names is a perfectly legitimate business and can qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services so long as the Respondent did not target a specific complainant or protected mark with a particular domain name…In short, there is nothing in the evidence before the Panel to suggest that Respondent was aware of Complainant or its REDFIELD mark when he acquired the Domain Name, and thus no evidence of targeting.
Sage Global Services Limited v. Narendra Ghimire, Deep Vision Architects, WIPO DAI2023-0010, 3-member, Denied with two concurring opinions
From the concurring opinion of Tony Willoughby
There is no dispute between us that domain name dealing is a legitimate activity. The Respondent purchased the disputed domain name from a legitimate source and there is no evidence that the Respondent has made any use of it save to advertise it for sale, a legitimate use in the context of a legitimate form of business.
ASDA Trade Ltd v. NAMEFIND CAYMAN ISLANDS LTD., CAC-UDRP-103505 <linkon.com> (2021), 3-member, Denied
The Respondent plainly states its business as trading in domain names. Whereas previous decisions under the Policy are not binding, panels nevertheless strive for consistency in the application of the Policy. As many decisions have reaffirmed, trading in domain names is not, in and of itself, illegitimate… Domain names are traded on an open market. Purchase and sale prices are agreed between buyer and seller. It is not a function of the Policy to interfere in such transactions except under the strict terms of the Policy itself. Absent registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, such as the targeting of trademark holders, a respondent may monetise its stock of domain names by way of advertising and may set the asking prices for them.
“V Kontakte” LLC v. zhou cai”, WIPO D2018-2939 <vk.app>, 3-member, Transfer
The Respondent is principally correct in stating that a domain name investor would have a legitimate interest in registering short domain names, including two-letter domain names in appropriate cases, if it does not target others’ trademarks, but in the light of the unchallenged evidence, this is of no help to it here…Moreover, the evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that prior to this proceeding the Respondent contacted the Complainant with the following message: “We are contacting you concerning the domain name ‘vk.app’. We own this domain name and are in the early stages of listing this domain for sale. As you own the corresponding domain name ‘vk.com’, we’d like to offer you the opportunity to purchase this domain name before we offer it for auction. We feel ‘vk.app’ is quite suitable for your online social media mobile application and complements your main domain ‘vk.com’.” The Respondent has submitted no comments on this message…