After losing an expired domain auction, man files UDRP against winner.
A man who lost an auction on DropCatch and then filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) complaint has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
Daniel Diemers operates a business under the brand SNGLR and owns matching domain names across many top-level extensions.
Earlier this year, the domain snglr.com expired and was captured through DropCatch.com, which auctioned the name to the highest bidder.
Diemers participated in the auction and placed several bids, but he was ultimately outbid. The winning bidder was domain investor Global IP Holdings Inc., and the final sale price was $1,249.
Following the auction, Diemers sent a message to DropCatch alleging trademark infringement and indicating his intent to file a UDRP complaint. He later filed that complaint against Global IP.
A three-member panel appointed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ruled in favor of Global IP on the issues of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests and the registration and use of the domain in bad faith.
The panel observed that the string “SNGLR” is a five-letter acronym used by various entities and is not exclusively associated with Diemers’ business.
In its decision the panel concluded that Diemers’ conduct amounted to reverse domain name hijacking. The panel specifically noted that Diemers personally took part in the DropCatch auction—placing three bids—and was aware that the respondent was a professional domain investor. The panel described the sequence of events, including Diemers’ March 9, 2026 letter to DropCatch and his subsequent filing of the complaint, as evidence that the UDRP proceeding was improperly used to try to wrest the domain from the purchaser.
Having participated in the DropCatch.com auction himself—placing three bids but ultimately being outbid by the Respondent—the Panel finds that the Complainant’s conduct in first sending a letter to DropCatch.com on March 9, 2026, and in subsequently filing this Complaint amounts to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, in particular in light of the Complainant’s acknowledgments in the body of the Complaint that the Respondent is a professional domain name investor.
The decision marked another successful defense for Global IP and its counsel, Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions. Diemers represented himself in the proceeding.