One panelist said he would have ruled reverse domain name hijacking.
A three-member World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel has denied Green Dot Corporation’s attempt to obtain the domain name RapidPay.com through a cybersquatting complaint. The panel’s decision rejected the challenge brought by Green Dot, finding the respondent, domain investor Cyber Capital Technology, held legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain.
Green Dot, a financial services and bank holding company, operates the domains GreenDot.com and RapidPayCard.com and holds U.S. trademark registrations for RAPID! PAYCARD and RAPID!, registrations that were assigned to the company in 2018. The disputed domain, RapidPay.com, was acquired by Cyber Capital Technology in August 2015 and is currently offered for sale for approximately $200,000.
In its defense, Cyber Capital Technology argued that the term “rapid pay” is descriptive and generic, referring simply to fast or instant payments. The respondent highlighted that Green Dot’s trademark registration required a disclaimer of the term “PayCard,” a limitation that differentiates the registered mark from the plain phrase “rapid pay.” The respondent also noted timing differences: Green Dot did not begin using the “Rapid! Pay” mark for its mobile app until 2020, five years after the respondent acquired the domain.
Cyber Capital Technology further presented evidence of widespread use of the term, identifying 26 separate companies using “rapidpay” in their names to support the point that the phrase is commonly used in commerce to describe payment speed rather than to identify a single source.
After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the WIPO panel ruled in favor of the respondent on both elements of legitimate interests in the domain name and lack of bad faith in registration and use. The panel’s reasoning emphasized that Green Dot’s trademark rights in RAPID! and RAPID! PAYCARD do not automatically confer exclusive rights to the generic or descriptive phrase “rapid pay,” particularly given the disclaimer of “PayCard” and the widespread, descriptive use of the term in the payment industry.
…the Panel concludes that while the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the acquisition of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s predecessor in title was required to disclaim “Paycard”. A “paycard” can be defined as a prepaid card that employers offer to employees as means to receive wages, compensation or employment-related benefits.
As such, “paycard” differs from “rapid pay” which carries a different concept and describes a different function, namely the fast payment of something. The Complainant’s rights in RAPID! and RAPID! PAYCARD do not automatically grant the Complainant exclusive rights in “rapid pay” which, as the Respondent appropriately indicated, is widely used by multiple companies in relation to instant or fast payments.
While the majority of the panel concluded the complaint did not amount to reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), panelist Gerald M. Levine expressed a differing view and stated he would have found RDNH in this case. The decision therefore reflects a split in perspective among the panelists about whether the complainant’s conduct warranted a finding of abusive complaint filing.
CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB acted as counsel for Green Dot, while Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions represented Cyber Capital Technology. The decision illustrates how descriptive use, prior acquisition of a domain, and the scope of trademark rights can determine outcomes in UDRP-style disputes.