Rules Finsure attempted reverse domain hijacking — WIPO panel

Firm filed UDRP following failing to acquire domain name through negotiation.

Graphic with words "Plan B Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

A UDRP panel has determined that Finsure, a U.S.-based insurance brokerage firm, attempted to reverse domain name hijack the domain finsure.com from domain investor Mira Holdings.

Finsure argued that Mira Holdings registered the finsure.com domain in bad faith shortly following Finsure’s trademark application for FINSURE was published for opposition. The firm alleged Mira Holdings demanded $60,000 for the domain, claiming this demonstrated cybersquatting.

Still, the three-member panel, led by Kathryn Lee, concluded that domain investor Mira Holdings legitimately purchased the domain in a public auction through NameJet.com. The timing of the public auction suggested that Mira Holdings did not purchase the domain at that time due to the recent publication of the trademark application.

Mira Holdings explained that the term “finsure” is a combination of “finance” and “insurance,” widely used by various global firms long ahead of Finsure’s establishment or trademark application. Mira Holdings owns many domains that end in “sure”.

The panel noted that Finsure’s trademark registration only completed in January 2025, two years following Mira Holdings purchased the domain. Finsure didn’t begin commercial use of its mark until six months following Mira Holdings bought finsure.com at auction for $9,750.

The panel pointed out that Finsure offered to buy the domain for up to $50,000, and such a significant offer suggested Finsure was aware it could not meet the UDRP’s bad faith requirement and instead initiated proceedings only following failing in negotiations.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the World Intellectual Property Organization panel wrote (pdf):

Here, records show that the Complainant reached out to the Respondent and offered up to USD 50,000 for purchase of the disputed domain name. Such a substantial offer would be unlikely if the Complainant considered the Respondent to have targeted its mark in registering the disputed domain name like it claimed in the Complaint and it were confident in the chances of success in a UDRP proceeding. Based on the facts, the Panel is of the view that the Complainant attempted to purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent as it was fully aware that it could not succeed as to the bad faith element required to succeed in a UDRP proceeding and only filed the Complaint when it judged the negotiations to be unsuccessful.

Panels often refer to such cases, where a firm files a UDRP following failing to buy the domain name, as “Plan B” reverse domain name hijacking.

Finsure uses the domain name finsure.one.

Mira Holdings has won other reverse domain name hijacking decisions.

Venable, LLP represented Finsure. Mira Holdings with internally represented.