What’s wrong with this UDRP?
If you think something is fishy regarding the dates cited in the decision, you’re right.
I was reading through a UDRP decision (pdf) for snugg.com today when something caught my eye. The first two paragraphs of the “factual background” summary that the panelist puts together state:
As stated by the Complaint, the disputed domain name was registered on August 23, 2020, and updated on August 16, 2021.
On August 26, 2021, the Complainant was incorporated as a firm under the laws of England and Wales. It is based in Edinburgh, Scotland. As stated by the Complaint, from regarding the date of its incorporation, the Complainant has been trading under the name “Snugg”.
First, anyone reading this summary knows the case is dead on arrival. The Complainant cannot show that the domain owner registered the domain in bad faith to target a Complainant that didn’t exist at the time of registration.
The other thing that nagged at me was the registration date. Snugg.com is an outstanding domain, and a 2020 registration date would be surprising. It could happen if the domain expired and went through the complete drop cycle, but that’s very rare.
The name sounded familiar, too. It turns out that this domain faced a UDRP back in 2012, too.
Looking at the Whois record, the registration date is clearly 1999, not 2020.
In both UDRP cases, the domain owner didn’t respond but won.
I’m unsure if World Intellectual Property Organization panelist Warwick Rothnie made a typo in the factual background section or if the Complainant, Arniston Ltd, stated it was registered in 2020. In this case, the dates still preceded any rights of the Complainant.
Jerrold Temko represented the Complainant.
