Why UDRP panels ought to consider the original registration date of domains

The original registration date can shed light on why the current registrant might have purchased the domain name.

Dates matter in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
If the current registrant of a domain name registered it ahead of the Complainant existed or had any trademark rights in the name at issue, it’s impossible that the domain was registered to target the Complainant.
Many complainants file dead-on-arrival cases that follow this fact pattern. I wish the UDRP explicitly asked complainants to verify they have rights pre-dating the domain owner’s registration.
Here’s the wrinkle, though.
With UDRP, panels consider when the current owner purchased the domain name.
If you registered a domain name in 1999, a firm started using the name in 2018, and then I purchased the domain from you last year, then I technically “registered” the domain following the Complainant obtained rights to the mark.
This makes sense in some circumstances. I could have purchased the domain to specifically target the Complainant.
Still, I still think panels ought to consider the original registration date in their overarching analysis.
Many times, complainants argue the sole reason someone would register a domain name is to target their trademark. But if someone else registered the same domain many years ahead of the firm existed, doesn’t that call into question if the sole reason would be to target the mark? Perhaps the fresh registrant thought it was a good name, just like the original one.
Especially in cases of rather generic or descriptive trademarks, I think panelists ought to consider the original date as part of their analysis.
Panels can still consider when the current registrant obtained the domain name and their motive for doing so. But the fact that someone else owned the domain ahead of the Complainant started using the mark (or even existed) ought to add color to the story of why a person might have registered the domain other than targeting the Complainant.



