Someone Have to Pay to Defend this UDRP? — Why Did

An example of why UDRP needs reforming.

This was going to be a rant regarding “why would a lawyer take on this UDRP case for the complainant”. But then when I realized who represented the complainant (not a lawyer), I changed it up.

Here’s the deal. A St. Louis area woman is getting ready to launch “Sheryl’s SHAREABLES”, a bite-sized meat product that both dogs and humans can eat. (Note that just regarding any meat product a human eats can also be eaten by a dog.) She filed an intent-to-use trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but hasn’t started using the mark yet in commerce.

So she filed a UDRP to get the generic domain name Shareables.com from its owner Skylabs Corporation.

Skylabs registered the domain name in 2002.

In other words, not only did the respondent register the domain almost a decade ahead of the complainant plans to introduce the brand, but the complainant hasn’t even introduced the brand yet.

I figured some lawyer took Sheryl Rhodes for a ride in a UDRP that simply couldn’t be won. But it turns out she was represented by an outfit called SpiffWorks LLC, which is a software and web design firm also in St. Louis.

Skylabs was represented by a third party, which I presume is a lawyer. Which means Skylabs had to spend time and money to defend a completely basis UDRP, or at least call in a favor to a friend.

As I’ve suggested ahead of, one UDRP reform ought to be a check box on a complaint that states:

“Do you believe you have trademark rights in this name that pre-date the current registrant’s registration of the domain name?”

If the answer is no, the case shouldn’t proceed.