2.8 Purchasing Domain Names at Public Auction
A domain registrant should be more confident, not less so, that there is no competing trademark claim relating to the domain name that has expired and listed for sale at public auction. These auctions are comprised of expired domain names, i.e. generally domain names that the former registrants no longer wanted and had abandoned.
Where there is no evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the domain name expired and came up for public auction among abandoned domain names, targeting will not be found since there is no evidence that the Respondent’s aim in registering the domain name was to exploit the Complainant’s trademark.
Where a Respondent purchases a domain name in the ordinary course of its domain name investment business at public auction because the domain name is appealing, such as a short domain name, or includes a keyword or common phrase that would be in demand, it shows that the Respondent is engaged in a legitimate activity and exercising its undoubted right to buy domain names as part of its business.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Medaxis AG v. Arash Ansari, WIPO D2024-2027, <medaxis.com>, 3-member, Transfer
In conclusion, given that the term in the disputed domain name has the appearance of a trademark rather than that of a dictionary word or phrase, the Respondent, as a domainer, should have shown a high level of attention and particular diligence when acquiring the disputed domain name from an expired domain names auction. In that regard, the Respondent need have looked no further than a brief trademark search or a Google search for the trademark owner’s official website. Indeed, one search or the other would more probably than not have disclosed the Complainant’s interest. It seems unlikely to the Panel (although possible) that the Respondent performed no such investigations, but if he did not, then the Panel considers that he should have done so and that his recklessness or willful blindness to the Complainant’s rights does not absolve the Respondent from the consequences of the Policy.
SRL BOWTEX v. Mira Holdings, WIPO D2024-1632, <bowtex.com>, 3-member, Transfer
In conclusion, given that the term in the disputed domain name has the appearance of a trademark rather than that of a dictionary word or phrase, the Respondent, as a domain name investor, should have shown a level of due diligence when acquiring the disputed domain name from a drop catching auction. In that regard, it need have looked no further than a brief trademark search in the jurisdiction where it is based, and/or a basic search on the history of the disputed domain name, and/or a Google search for the trademark owner’s official website. Indeed, one search or the other would more probably than not have disclosed the Complainant’s interest. It seems implausible to the Panel that the Respondent performed no such investigations especially given its awareness of the Internet Archive, but if it did not, then the Panel considers that it should have done so and that its willful blindness to the Complainant’s rights does not absolve it from the consequences of the Policy.
Apnea Sciences Corporation v. Private Domain / Above Privacy, Forum FA2310002065870, <sleeprx.com>, 3-member, Denied, RDNH
Secondly, the fact that the Respondent bought the domain name on May 15, 2022 also does not negate a finding that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. Rather, it shows that the Respondent acquired such a right and interest in the domain name from the time it bought it. That is so because the evidence is that the Respondent runs a legitimate business of buying, developing and, where it occurs, selling domain names…
Thus, the panel delivering the three-person unanimous decision in that case was able to say that registering the domain name, far from showing an intent to target the complainant trademark owner, showed that it was part of a legitimate domain name business. That conclusion is equally appropriate in the present case where the Respondent bought the domain name at a public auction in which it took part but in which the Complainant did not. All of these considerations point to the Respondent engaging in a legitimate activity and exercising its undoubted right to buy domain names as part of its business.
Equentia SCF Technologies Private Limited v. Huang ShaoHuai, WIPO D2023-4724, <credable.com> , Denied
On one hand, the Respondent has made a plausible case of a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name which consists of a variation of the word “credible”, also being potentially read as “cred” and “able”.On the other hand, the evidence produced by the Complainant does not show the alleged international reputation of its CREDABLE trademark, also there was no evidence submitted that would indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the disputed domain name expired and came up for public auction among abandoned domain names in July 2022.
UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. Private Domain, Above Privacy / Mira Holdings, Inc., WIPO D2022-3835, <prominencehealth.com>, 3-member, Transfer
Respondent viewed this Domain Name as being worth several times the price (USD 755) for which Respondent bought the Domain Name at auction in April 2021. Respondent is correct that acquiring domain names for resale is not in itself an illegitimate undertaking. In this case, however, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s acquisition of this Domain Name is not legitimate. Respondent admittedly conducted a USPTO trademark search, which revealed Complainant’s registered trademark, PROMINENCE HEALTH PLAN. That trademark is obviously very similar to the Domain Name. In the Panel’s view, the similarity is so close that Respondent should have realized that it would be capitalizing on Complainant’s registered trademark by acquiring the Domain Name and selling it for a profit.
iEnterprises, Holdings, LLC v. Private Domain, CAC-UDRP-103374 < icrm.com> (2020), 3-member, Denied
The Respondent bought the disputed domain name at an auction and did not approach the Complainant to speculate on the resale of the domain name. Rather, the Complainant tried to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent twice, but the Respondent considered its offer too low. Given the nature of the disputed domain name, and the fact that the Respondent does not appear to be trading off the Complainant or its trademark, the Panel considers that Respondent’s request for the sale of the disputed domain name amounts to a bona fide offering of goods and services.