Company went after a common Spanish word registered nearly three decades ago.
A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panelist has ruled that Agencia de Aduanas Pasar Ltda., a logistics firm based in Colombia, engaged in reverse domain name hijacking when it filed a complaint over the domain name pasar. The company conducts business under the name PasarLtda.com and sought to bring a cybersquatting claim against the longstanding domain registration for pasar.
The disputed domain name, pasar, is a short, common word in Spanish—meaning “to pass”—and also carries other meanings in different languages, such as “market” in Indonesian. The domain was registered in 1999 by Ming K Chow, long before the complainant’s trademark applications. Although Agencia de Aduanas Pasar Ltda. has been registered as a business since 1978, it did not apply for relevant trademarks until 2022.
Panelist Matthew Kennedy concluded that the domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith by the respondent. The decision finds that the complainant failed to provide evidence establishing rights in a mark that predated the domain registration or to demonstrate that the respondent could reasonably have known about the complainant at the time of registration. The panel also noted the long time gap between the domain’s 1999 registration and the complainant’s later trademark filings.
The Panel notes that the Complainant has legal representation. Despite this, it made no attempt to show that the Respondent could or should have known of the existence of itself or any of its marks at the time when it registered the disputed domain name. It chose to ignore the prolonged interval between the registration of the disputed domain name and the registration of its trademarks, omitting even to state the trademark registration dates in its arguments. Further, the Complainant failed to acknowledge that the disputed domain name is a very common word with multiple meanings that do not refer to itself, such that a good faith use is plausible. There is every reason to believe that the Complainant knew that the Complaint as presented could not succeed on any reasonable interpretation of the Policy.
Clearly, the Complainant feels that it would make better use of the disputed domain name than the Respondent is making of it, but that is no basis for a UDRP complaint. The Complainant has unjustifiably put the Respondent to the time and effort of defending itself.
The panel’s finding of reverse domain name hijacking means the complainant’s UDRP claim was considered abusive. Reverse domain name hijacking is a determination that a complainant has attempted to deprive a domain name holder of a domain by filing a complaint in bad faith, particularly where the complainant lacks rights in a trademark predating the domain’s registration or where the evidence does not support a legitimate claim of bad faith registration or use.
In this case, the panel emphasized two key points: the respondent registered pasar in 1999, and the complainant’s trademark rights were asserted only decades later. The combination of the long registration interval and the generic nature of the word made it reasonable for the respondent to have legitimate, non-infringing uses for the domain. The panel also criticized the complainant for not addressing these defects in its complaint, despite having legal counsel.
Muñoz Abogados S.A.S. represented Agencia de Aduanas Pasar Ltda. in the proceeding, while the respondent represented himself. The decision serves as a reminder that UDRP complaints must be supported by clear evidence of trademark rights that predate the domain registration and by proof of bad faith registration or use. Merely asserting that a complainant would make better use of a domain or that it trades under a similar name is insufficient to meet the UDRP standard.
For businesses and brand owners, this outcome underscores the importance of timely trademark protection and careful assessment before initiating domain dispute proceedings. Where a domain name consists of a common word or term with multiple meanings, panels will look closely at registration dates, evidence of rights, and whether the complainant reasonably believed the respondent acted in bad faith.
The ruling reaffirms WIPO UDRP panels’ role in filtering out unfounded complaints and protecting legitimate domain name registrants from abusive claims. In addition to resolving disputes, such decisions can deter attempts to use the UDRP process as a tool for wresting control of generic or legitimately owned domain names from their registrants.