Panel faults financial services company for weak case and for continuing after learning the registrant’s identity.
Domain name investor Blue Nova has successfully defended the domain inyo.com in a UDRP proceeding. A three-member panel concluded that Inyo, Inc., a financial services company, attempted reverse domain name hijacking by filing the complaint.
Inyo argued the domain changed hands after it began using the INYO name in commerce, pointing to a shift in the domain’s landing page from a pay-per-click placeholder to a Venture.com leasing page in 2019. That timing, the complainant suggested, supported its claim that rights in the mark predated the current registrant’s ownership.
The panel rejected that theory. Evidence showed Blue Nova has owned inyo.com since 2005 and simply altered where the domain resolved. Even if ownership had changed in 2019, the panel found multiple independent flaws in Inyo’s case that would have been fatal under the UDRP.
First, the complainant failed to demonstrate that its INYO mark is widely known or established to the degree claimed. The panel noted Inyo offered insufficient proof that the mark enjoys broad recognition beyond the company’s own use.
Second, Blue Nova provided clear evidence of extensive, bona fide use of the four-letter term “inyo” in its domain and related services. That established legitimate interests in the domain for the respondent.
Third, Inyo did not produce any persuasive proof that Blue Nova registered or used the domain with bad-faith intent to target the complainant. The absence of evidence showing deliberate targeting was decisive.
Given these deficiencies, the panel concluded the complaint lacked merit and qualified as reverse domain name hijacking. The decision specifically criticized the complainant and its counsel, stating they “should have known that its claim could not succeed under the Policy.”
The panel also reprimanded Inyo for pursuing the dispute after the registrar confirmed the registrant’s identity. Once that information was available, the panel observed, a brief search would have revealed Blue Nova’s corporate website and prior UDRP rulings in which Blue Nova prevailed.
“A simple Google search would have shown Respondent’s website at bluenova.com and earlier UDRP decisions in which Respondent had prevailed,” the panel wrote. “Complainant could have also ascertained that Respondent likely acquired the disputed domain name in 2005, some ten years before Complainant began using the INYO mark for its financial services, and that Complainant’s suggested change of ownership based on a 2019 change in the domain’s use was an unsupportable argument.”
The decision underscores the importance of thorough pre-filing investigation and credible evidence when challenging domain ownership under the UDRP. Allegations of bad faith and trademark rights must be supported by objective documentation and a plausible chain of events; otherwise a complainant risks not only losing the case but being branded as having engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
Dentons US LLP represented Inyo, while ESQwire.com, P.C. represented Blue Nova in the proceeding.