UDRP DNW: Three RDNH Decisions pronounced today...



Upgraded Member
1) [D2021-1352]

A Spanish company that provides software to beauty salons attempted to reverse domain name hijacking, a World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has ruled.

Software Koibox S.L. filed the UDRP after first inquiring about buying the domain. According to the decision, it initially tried to buy the domain in 2015, shortly after it was founded. At the time, the registrant wanted $2,000, but the company only offered $500. It inquired again in 2019, and the domain registrant requested $50,000.

None of this matters because the owner registered the domain in 1999, some 14 years before the Complainant existed. Therefore, it’s impossible that it was registered in bad faith to target Software Koibox.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, panelist Warwick Rothnie wrote:

Bearing in mind that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1999 some fourteen years before the Complainant even existed or adopted its trademark, the Complainant should have known the Complaint must fail. Instead, the Complainant filed the Complaint, the substantive text of which consists of five paragraphs without satisfactorily addressing the fundamental requirement of registration in bad faith under the Policy.

Software Koibox appears to use the domains and

Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions represented the domain owner.


2) [D2021-1420]

A World Intellectual Property Organization panelist has found Machani Infra Development Corporation Private Limited to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

The company filed a UDRP complaint against and failed to convince the panel of any of the three prongs required to win a cybersquatting dispute.

Most damning was that the domain name owner’s last name is Machani. While it’s plausible that the Complainant didn’t know this when it filed its dispute, it didn’t withdraw the case after finding out this information. Instead, it doubled down by trying to submit a supplemental filing that did not dispute the evidence about the family name of the Respondent but started with the statement that “The Respondent has not disputed or denied any of the submissions and contentions made in the complaint and is, therefore, deemed to have accepted the submissions and contentions made in the complaint”.

The panelist also found that the Complainant made inflated claims about trademark rights in the term Machani. In any event, the supporting evidence it submitted to purported common law rights post-dated the domain registration.

IndusLaw represented the Complainant, and Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions represented the domain owner. This is the second reverse domain name hijacking finding Cylaw has won that was published today.


3) [D2021-1333]

Maharishi Foundation USA, Inc is the guilty party in this case. It has a U.S. trademark for TM, which is short for its Transcendental Meditation technique. It uses the domain

Working With The Mind, a community interest company in the UK, uses for its site. The organization helps people with mindfulness, including mindfulness programs for prisons and people impacted by COVID-19.

One of the Complainant’s arguments was that is a typo of, but the panelist didn’t buy that.

World Intellectual Property Organization panelist John Swinson took issue with how Maharishi Foundation USA, Inc presented its case.

In finding RDNH, called attention to this statement by Maharishi Foundation:

“Clearly, Respondent selected and used the Disputed Domain Name solely to attract consumers to its website by trading on the fame of the TM trademark; such use can not confer any proprietary rights in Complainant’s trademark to the Respondent.

Furthermore, nothing on the Respondent’s website suggests any proper use of the TM acronym or a good faith basis for adopting the WWTM name. Respondent does not state anywhere on his sites what TM, alone, or in combination with WWTM means.”

Swinson disagreed:

Based on the evidence presented in the Complaint, it is certainly not clear to the Panel that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name solely to trade on the fame of the TM trademark.

Further, it is clear to the Panel that, even on a cursory review of the Respondent’s website, the disputed name is an acronym for “Working With The Mind”. The Respondent’s website uses the name “Working With The Mind” in many places, including in the title. Prior to filing the Complainant, the Complainant and the Respondent communicated by email. The Respondent in this correspondence stated to the Complainant’s attorney: “You and the Foundation you represent can read more about WWTM on our website at” The Complainant had no reasonable basis to assert in the Complaint that nothing on the Respondent’s website suggests any proper use for adopting the WWTM name.

The Complainant was legally represented. The Complainant promotes techniques to improve calmness, clarity of mind and happiness. The Respondent is a small social enterprise with limited funds and is self-represented, and it is reasonable for the Panel to conclude that the Complainant was aware of this before filing the Complainant.

Shuttleworth & Ingersoll P.L.C. represented the Complainant. The Respondent represented himself.

Name Worth
Top Bottom