Man found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in two UDRP cases
A man in Mexico has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in two separate Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings brought before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The complainant, identified as Guillermo Vázquez Álvarez, pursued complaints against the domain names gressus.org and gressus.com.
The dispute concerning gressus.org was filed against Gressus Ventures LLC. According to the decision, the respondent company was established in early 2015, which the panel found preceded the complainant’s claimed first use of the GRESSUS mark. While the respondent’s registration of the domain occurred two years after the company was formed, the chronology persuaded the panel that the domain registration did not target the complainant. In short, the domain owner’s timeline undermined any suggestion of bad-faith targeting.
Panelist Jeremy Speres, who presided over both cases, identified multiple grounds for finding reverse domain name hijacking in the .org matter. A central factor was the complainant’s asserted timeline for first use of the mark, which the panel found to be inconsistent with the undisputed facts: the complainant’s business had not yet launched, making the claimed earlier use appear fabricated. The panel also flagged statements in the complaint that described the GRESSUS mark as being “public, notorious, and prior” at the time the domain was registered—statements the panel concluded were not supported by the record.
Another key point in the .org decision involved the complainant’s characterization of “gressus” as a coined, highly distinctive and fanciful term. The panel rejected that characterization after reviewing evidence showing widespread use of the word by multiple companies. In other words, the panel found that “gressus” is not as uniquely distinctive as the complainant contended.
The proceeding concerning the gressus.com domain raised different factual questions but led to the same result. The .com domain is owned by a domain investment company operating under the name FindYourDomain. The complaint noted a domain registration date of 2004, while FindYourDomain’s response pointed out that date as well, suggesting a need to clarify when the company actually acquired ownership of the domain.
Speres scrutinized the competing accounts of the domain’s registration and ownership history. Available historical records indicate the domain was acquired by the current owner after 2015, which, if true, would bear on the question of whether the registration targeted the complainant. However, the panel emphasized that it was the complainant’s responsibility to credibly allege a change in registrant and to support that allegation with evidence. Without a persuasive showing that the registrant changed in a way that supported the complainant’s theory, the burden could not be shifted to the domain owner to disprove targeting.
Even accepting a later acquisition date for the domain, the panel concluded the .com complaint still failed on the merits. Speres found insufficient evidence that the domain owner had registered or used the domain in bad faith to target the complainant. As in the .org matter, the panel relied on the reality that the complainant’s business had not launched and that the asserted distinctiveness of the GRESSUS mark was overstated given the term’s broader commercial use. Those factors contributed to the conclusion that the complaints were improperly filed.
On both decisions, the panel formally found that the complainant had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. The rulings underscore the importance of accurate factual presentation and credible evidence when alleging trademark rights and bad-faith targeting in UDRP proceedings. Misrepresentations about the timing of first use, overstatements of distinctiveness, and failure to adequately support claims about registrant changes can expose a complainant to a reverse hijacking finding.
Both cases list legal representation for the complainant as provided by Regalado & Galindo Abogados. The respondents in each matter were represented internally. The panelist’s findings serve as a caution to prospective UDRP complainants to ensure that claims are supported by reliable evidence and that factual assertions align with independent records before initiating proceedings.