Panelist cites false statements for RDNH finding.
Forma Brands, LLC, the parent company of the cosmetics brand Morphe, was found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) following a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding. The dispute centered on six domain names that Forma claimed were controlled by a single party and used to mislead consumers by hosting imitation storefronts.
The company brought a consolidated complaint against all six domains, arguing that the sites were part of a coordinated effort to trade off the MORPHE trademark. During the proceeding, close scrutiny of the evidence revealed significant inconsistencies in the Complainant’s consolidation theory—most notably with one domain, morpheuz.com, which showed a different history and ownership trail than the five domains that hosted copycat storefronts.
According to the UDRP record, the registrant of morpheuz.com had acquired the name from a third party in 2016 and had publicly stated an intention to develop a business related to sleep. The domain name appears to reference Morpheus, the mythological figure associated with dreams and sleep. That history differed from the registrations and usage patterns of the other disputed domains, which the panel found were more plausibly involved in reproducing the complainant’s site content.
When the registrant of morpheuz.com responded to the complaint, they pointed out these distinctions and provided evidence that undermined the claim of common ownership among the six domains. Despite that response, Forma Brands persisted in its consolidated case. Panelist Ho-Hyun Nahm declined to consolidate all matters and allowed only the morpheuz.com claim to proceed independently.
In the decision, the panel concluded that the morpheuz.com registrant demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The panel also determined that the Complainant’s filings contained material inaccuracies and speculative assertions about common ownership that should have been verified before filing. Those false or unsubstantiated statements were a central reason for the RDNH finding.
The panel’s opinion highlighted several specific deficiencies in the Complaint. First, evidence offered to show MORPHE’s trademark notoriety was limited to a screenshot from the Complainant’s own website, which described the brand’s founding and influence but did not include independent financial data or third-party proof of fame. Second, despite being represented by experienced counsel, the Complainant made statements about the six disputed domains that the panel regarded as speculative and contradictory.
The panel observed that the Complainant’s chronology indicated the five copycat domains were registered in 2025, while morpheuz.com had been created in July 2011. The Complaint also reproduced inconsistent WHOIS details—different names, addresses, telephone numbers, countries, and email addresses—which undermined the claim that the same registrant controlled each domain. The assertion that the morpheuz.com registration was “hidden behind a privacy service and so may be the same” was described by the panel as conjecture rather than proof.
Panelist Nahm further noted that morpheuz.com used GoDaddy (domaincontrol.com) nameservers during the periods under review and never hosted the alleged copied MORPHE storefront. The evidence of copied storefronts and consumer confusion pertained to the other five domains, and the Complaint did not identify a shared registrar account, common payment source, DNS management account, hosting provider, revenue stream, person, communication trail, or business relationship that would link morpheuz.com to those domains.
Given these factual gaps and the Complainant’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence before filing, the panel deemed the Complaint to be brought in bad faith specifically with respect to morpheuz.com. The RDNH finding reflects the panel’s view that the complainant advanced claims that were unsupported or contradicted by readily available evidence, and that continuing the consolidated action despite responsive submissions was improper.
Crowell & Moring LLP represented Forma Brands in the proceeding. The respondent did not list outside legal counsel in the record, but supplied a detailed and capable response that the panel found persuasive in demonstrating legitimate interest and rebutting the consolidation theory.
The outcome serves as a reminder that UDRP complainants must carefully verify factual assertions before filing, and that speculative or inconsistent allegations—especially regarding common control of multiple domain names—can lead to findings of reverse domain name hijacking when claims are advanced without sufficient support.