UDRP has a lot of open questions — The CloudInsure.com

I’m confused following reading this UDRP decision and reviewing the domain’s details

This morning I began writing an article regarding a UDRP for CloudInsure.com. My general thesis was that this ought to have been a case of reverse domain name hijacking. Once I started investigating, I had more questions than I had answers.

As stated by the National Arbitration Forum decision, CyberRiskPartners, LLC filed the case against Drew Bartkiewicz.

National Arbitration Forum Panelist M. Kelly Tillery included this timeline in the decision:

3/17/10 Domain Name First Registered
10/1/11 Complainant LLC Formed
11/14/12 Filing Date TM Application by Complainant
11/30/13 First Claimed Use of Mark by Complainant
2/3/15 Complainant TM Registration on U.S. Supplemental Register
12/17/18 Complainant Filed Complaint

I ought to note that the 2012 trademark filing was on an intent-to-use basis. Also, note that the registration is on the supplemental registrar.

I checked historical Whois records and verified that the current owner was the 2010 registrant.

Given these facts, this UDRP was dead on arrival; the domain owner registered the domain prior to the Complainant even existing.

But things got confusing when I went to view CyberRiskPartners’ website.

CyberRiskPartner’s website states the firm is the holding firm of CloudInsure.com, LLC. If you click on CloudInsure.com it forwards to CloudEnsure.org, a name that was just registered on January 8.

Additionally, the Complainant submitted marketing materials and a business card to the USPTO in 2014 that included the CloudInsure.com domain name.

And if you go back to archives of CloudInsure.com, it states it’s a subsidiary of CyberRiskPartners, LLC.

All of this would lead you to believe that the Complainant had control of the domain name at some point. But nothing in the decision alludes to this.

I reached out to both the Complainant and Respondent this morning and did not immediately hear back.

What am I missing?