Complainant mischaracterizes policy’s view on domain investing.
A World Intellectual Property Organization panel recently found that Mecalac Construction Equipment UK, a company that sells construction machinery, attempted to reverse domain name hijack the domain fermec.com. The panel’s decision confirms important principles about expired domains and the legitimate practice of domain investing.
The domain fermec.com was acquired by domain investor Global IP Holdings in an expired domain auction in 2019 for $240. Prior to that sale a company affiliated with the complainant had been the registrant but allowed the domain to expire. The transfer through a public auction and the low purchase price were central facts in the panel’s assessment.
Panelist Scott Blackmer explained why the complaint failed and concluded that the complainant had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. His reasoning emphasized that the complainant incorrectly relied on precedent to assert a broad rule that would effectively criminalize ordinary domain reselling. The panel made three key points:
- The complainant mischaracterized a prior UDRP decision as establishing a novel rule that “domain name reselling, without actual use, does not establish a legitimate interest.” The panel rejected that overbroad reading.
- The complaint’s third-element argument focused on the respondent offering the domain for sale. The complainant asserted—incorrectly—that panels consistently hold that offering a domain for sale at a price above documented out-of-pocket costs automatically proves bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. The panel clarified that this is not the Policy’s standard, nor the consistent outcome of panel decisions.
- The Policy views bad faith in resale cases through a narrower lens: it infers bad faith only when evidence shows the registrant acquired the domain primarily to sell it to the trademark owner for a profit and was likely aware of the trademark at the time of acquisition. Simply registering a domain for subsequent resale, even for profit, does not itself demonstrate registration in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling it to the trademark owner or a competitor.
Those conclusions reinforce that the domain resale market is lawful and recognized by UDRP panels when there is no clear evidence that a registrant targeted a trademark owner specifically to extract a higher price. In this case, the panel found the complainant’s arguments overgeneralized the Policy and thus amounted to reverse domain name hijacking.
The complainant was represented by IPSILON, and Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions acted for the domain owner. The decision serves as a reminder that UDRP claims must be grounded in the Policy’s actual standards and supported by evidence showing targeted bad-faith conduct, not by overbroad characterizations of legitimate domain investment activity.