A $1,000 purchase would have been cheaper and avoided a reverse domain name hijacking finding.
A UK-based business owner took a legal route to try to obtain a domain name, but his approach proved costly in more ways than one. Callum Charnock, who operates an extreme sports apparel business under the name LoyalSoldiers.co.uk, initiated a UDRP complaint at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against the domain LoyalSoldiers.com. What followed exposed several flaws in both the legal grounds of the complaint and the strategy behind it.
The case contained multiple weaknesses. For example, the complainant relied on a trademark that had already expired and which did not include the exact words in dispute as strong evidence of rights. That omission alone should have reduced the likelihood of success. But those substantive shortcomings are not the most striking issue in this matter.
The most surprising—and arguably the most avoidable—mistake was financial. Charnock first contacted the domain holder with an offer of just GBP 100 (about $100) for the domain, accompanied by a formal notice asserting a trademark infringement. The domain owner, operating as Hola Domains, declined and countered with a sales price of USD 999.00. Rather than accept that counteroffer or negotiate further, Charnock immediately filed a UDRP complaint.
Filing a single-panel UDRP complaint at WIPO carries a non-refundable administrative fee, which in this instance was $1,500. That means that instead of paying the $999 counteroffer to secure the domain, Charnock spent far more on the dispute process—and he lost. The panel not only rejected the complaint but also found that the complaint was brought in bad faith, amounting to reverse domain name hijacking.
In this context, the Panel has recognized that through all the years since the registration of the disputed domain name in 2014, Respondent never approached Complainant with any offer or the like to acquire the disputed domain name, presumably because it was not aware of Complainant and its LOYAL SOLDIERS trademark and business in the United Kingdom at all. Rather, it was Complainant who initiated contact with Respondent on April 29, 2026, combining a formal “Notice of Trademark Infringement” filed through the Registrar with an offer to buy the disputed domain for GBP 100.00. When Respondent declined and offered in turn a reduced sales price of USD 999.00 the same day, Complainant went on to initiate this UDRP proceeding right away on May 1, 2026; such close timing, however, may well be interpreted as using the UDRP to increase leverage in negotiations to purchase a domain name at a discount which former UDRP panels have found to be indicative of filing a UDRP Complaint in bad faith (see e.g. BERNINA International AG v. Domain Administrator, Name Administration Inc. (BVI), WIPO Case D2016-1811). Besides, Complainant argued repeatedly that he owned rights in a United Kingdom national trademark UK00002529719 since before the registration of the disputed domain name, without, however, disclosing that such trademark expired already on October 23, 2019. Finally, on the basis of the fact that the disputed domain name is solely composed of dictionary terms, and may be used for a multitude of purposes, it should have been clear to Complainant that the circumstances of this case did not justify to find that the disputed domain name had been registered and used to target Complainant and its LOYAL SOLDIERS business, as it is required for a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Accordingly, Complainant, although not represented by counsel, should have realized that it could not succeed in this UDRP proceeding, and so its Complaint was brought in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 15(e) of the Policy.
The panel’s reasoning highlights several key points. First, the timing and sequence of events—an initial low offer, a prompt refusal, an immediate counteroffer, and then an almost instantaneous filing of a formal dispute—strongly suggested that the UDRP was used as a bargaining tool rather than as a last resort to protect legitimate rights. Prior panels have regularly considered that such conduct indicates bad faith when a complainant attempts to force a sale at an artificially reduced price by leveraging the costs and pressure of formal proceedings.
Second, the panel noted the expired trademark and the generic nature of the disputed domain. The domain consists of dictionary words that can be used by many different parties for a variety of purposes. These factors undermined any argument that the respondent had registered or used the name specifically to target the complainant’s business.
The outcome has practical lessons. Initiating a formal dispute carries not only monetary costs but also reputational risk: a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is a serious admonition and can discourage future reliance on the UDRP in similar circumstances. Before taking such a step, a potential complainant should review evidence of rights carefully, consider the proportionality of pursuing a complaint versus negotiating a purchase, and, ideally, seek legal advice to assess both the strength of the claim and alternative strategies.
In short, paying the $999 counteroffer—or engaging in further negotiation—would have been the less expensive and less risky route. Consulting a lawyer before filing might have revealed the weaknesses now emphasized by the panel and could have prevented the reverse domain name hijacking finding altogether.