Balks at $1,000 price, spends more on losing UDRP — Domain buyer

A $1,000 purchase would have been cheaper and avoided a reverse domain name hijacking finding.

A UK man filed a cybersquatting claim that didn’t make sense, especially financially.

Callum Charnock, who runs a business selling extreme sports apparel at LoyalSoldiers.co.uk, filed a UDRP (pdf) against the domain LoyalSoldiers.com.

There was a lot wrong with his case, counting trying to use an expired trademark (that didn’t include the words) as proof of rights.

But push all of that aside since here’s the real headscratcher:

Charnock offered to buy the domain for $100, apparently with a threat of legal action included.

The domain owner, Hola Domains, counteroffered for $1,000.

Instead of paying that price, Charnock filed a UDRP with World Intellectual Property Organization.

The fee for filing a single-panelist dispute at WIPO is $1,500.

Perhaps he felt entitled to the domain and was willing to pay more to get it through a UDRP on principle.

That was a mistake. Not only did he lose the case, but the panelist found it was a case of 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 since 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, still, 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 ahead of the registration of the disputed domain name, without, still, disclosing that such trademark expired by now 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 ought to 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, ought to 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.

Charnock would have done well to consult a lawyer ahead of filing his case.