Plan B / RDNH Pattern – Generic Swedish Domain, Purchase Attempts, Then ADR

[BrandEntrance.com]

I’m a domain portfolio owner operating through a registered Swedish company. I only deal with generic domains, never trademarks.

The Domain​

• Swedish dictionary compound word
• Meaning: “forest life”
• Structurally equivalent to terms like “family life”, “outdoor life”
• Documented linguistic usage going back centuries

This is not a coined brand.

Evidence of Generic Nature​

The term sits inside a large open semantic field:

• skog (forest)
• natur (nature)
• ekosystem (ecosystem)
• friluftsliv (outdoor life)
• djurliv (animal life)

This is standard descriptive Swedish language, not a distinctive identifier.

Timeline (critical)​

• Domain existed and used historically (Internet Archive evidence)
• I owned it previously for years
• Due to illness → brief lapse
• Re-registered immediately when available (2025)
• Company (Holmen AB) had already:
  • tried to acquire the domain earlier
• After refusal:
  • they registered a limited trademark (2022) (publications only)
• Then:
  • renewed attempts to acquire
• Now:
  • ADR filed

Key Evidence​

1. Internetstiftelsen email
   • confirms Holmen initiated contact
   • explicitly for purchase inquiry
2. Multiple independent buyers
   • demonstrates market value unrelated to complainant
3. Negotiation history
   • I did not approach them
   • they approached me
   • price (300,000 SEK ex VAT) given only after their request
4. Portfolio context
   • NordicDomains = active domain business
   • multiple similar generic domains
     

Trademark Reality​

• Registered 2022
• Classes:
  • publications / electronic media only
• Does NOT cover:
  • general ecological meaning
  • language usage
  • domain ownership

Structural Conflict​

This is where it becomes interesting:

• Domain meaning → ecology / life / environment
• Company → industrial forestry

These are not equivalent semantic domains.

Core Issue​

Sequence matters:

Attempted acquisition → refusal → trademark → ADR

That is the exact pattern seen in known Plan B cases.

Question to Experienced Members​

At what point does this cross into:


Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)
Abuse of ADR as a substitute for failed acquisition

My Position​

• Generic domain
• Prior ownership (continuity, not opportunistic reg)
• No targeting
• Independent market value
• Complainant initiated purchase

Why I’m Posting​

Not to argue emotionally but to document a pattern that appears structurally identical to previously recognized RDNH scenarios.
Company turns over 3 billion USD per annum.

 

[BrandEntrance.com]

ok some have bookmarked for replies. I appreciate any informative feedback.

 

[jberryhill]

Posting on a public forum is a great way to discuss general topics. It's not such a great way to get specific legal advice on matters which can be fact intensive, and for which the relevant facts are not always obvious.

That said, I thought this book was the bees knees when I was in college, but in retrospect, Thoreau is just sponging a place to live off of a friend, while having nothing but contempt for everyone who lives around him because he thinks they are small-minded.

I'm surprised they bothered to translate it into Swedish, because I really wouldn't think Swedes would be that interested in hearing reflections on natural living from a guy living on a small pond just outside of town in a developed area.

It's not just Swedish, though. It's also Norwegian (e.g. skogsliv.no)

 

[jberryhill]

"Magazine marks" are something of their own category, and you don't see many of them anymore. The problem is that a deathly generic term can be generic for whatever it is, but it becomes an arbitrary mark for a magazine. In other words you can have "GOLF" as a magazine title, because golf is a game played with sticks and balls, and is not a generic word for a magazine.

As a forest products company, it makes sense for Holmen to have specialized magazines and publications for its tree growers in order to help them grow trees for Homen, but, no, that does not confer a monopoly on the word itself.

These types of "magazine mark" disputes have historically included such cases I have defended as:

Motorcyclist.com
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0311.html - which was one of the first cases I defended before they were consistent about identifying counsel in these things.

Outside.com
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1275.html

TipsAndTricks.com
https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/969417.htm

"The Panel accepts Respondent’s claim that the phrase “tips and tricks” is in common use apart from its use as a trademark by Complainant, and considers Respondent’s claims that its reasons for acquiring the domain name were entirely unrelated to Complainant’s trademark and that it did not even know of the mark at that time to be entirely plausible. Furthermore, based upon the limited record before the Panel, it appears that Respondent’s use of the domain name is indeed related to “tips and tricks” generally—not (or at most merely incidentally) to video game “tips and tricks” in particular, and not at all to Tips & Tricks magazine or even to magazines about video games generally. "

Joystick.com / PCJeux.com ("PC Games" in French)
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1422.html

"In this case, the Complainant claims that the Respondent should have been on notice of the Complainant's rights in the mark due to the Complainant's French registration in 1996 of an alternate trademark, “PC JEUX, LE MAGAZINE DES JEUX SUR PC”. ...

Again, PC JEUX, can be considered a generic term. The Complainant goes to great length in explaining that under a proper translation, “PC Jeux” is not French for “PC games” in English, i.e., “PC games” is correctly translated as “Jeux pour PC.” However, the Complainant cannot deny that “PC” is an acronym for the common English language term, “personal computer,” and that “jeux” is commonly translated from French into English as “games”. “Jeu” or “jeux” is intelligible in many languages, certainly English, as in “jeu/jeux de mots” or “faites vos jeux”.

Thus, the Panel refuses to find it unreasonable for the Respondent to view the term “PC jeux” as a combination of common or generic English and French terms meaning roughly “personal computer games” in French."

While some people fixate on dates of trademark filing or application when they see something like this:

The more important consideration is "when did they start using this mark in a way that the Respondent is likely to have known about" since the core of the UDRP, putting everything else aside, is simply the question "Why did this person register this domain name? Was it more likely because of the trademark, or because of some other reason?"

That is the UDRP reduced to its very essence.

So, sure, your recent registration of the domain name is interesting because it comes years after their trademark registration.

But, the prior terms of registration are interesting, since it suggests you may have simply been interested to get back the domain name you had already had.

That doesn't answer every question here since, sure, I could hold a domain name for a long time, decide to get rid of it, and then want it back after I find out it has become a valuable trademark to someone.

But that gets into the real nuts and bolts of how these things operate, since it brings in "well, how well known are these publications?" Does every man, woman and child in Sweden rush to empty the newsstands when it comes out, or are we talking about just some weird loners living in the woods? And what about you? Are you one of those weird loners out in the woods that is supplying pulp to Holmen or had you never heard of this publication?

I'm not asking you to answer these questions, but simply pointing out rhetorically why you aren't going to get any decent advice by thinking a UDRP works like a pachinko board where the ball bounces off of bullet point facts to land in one of the slots at the bottom. It's really just a way of pointing out that nobody here, absent some cadre of avid readers of (a) Swedish forestry magazines and (b) Namepros, rushing in to comment, can really provide you with any sound advice on the basis of the information you posted. I certainly can't, nor would I provide legal advice on a public forum, given the obligation of confidentiality inherent in the provision of legal advice.

 

[BrandEntrance.com]

Hi John,


Thank you for taking the time to respond, I genuinely appreciate it, especially given the limitations of discussing fact-specific matters in a public forum.


Your point about the core question “why was the domain registered?” is particularly helpful, and it clarifies where the real focus should be. In my case, the domain is a generic Swedish term, and I had previously owned it. When it became available again, I simply re-registered it for the same reason I held it before, not in response to or with any awareness of the complainant’s trademark.


Your explanation regarding “magazine marks” was also very useful. It makes sense that a generic term can function as a publication title without conferring broader exclusivity over the term itself.


I also understand your point that the analysis ultimately turns on factual context, including how well known the mark is and whether it is plausible that the registrant had it in mind. In my situation, the term has broad, descriptive meaning in Swedish and sits within a large semantic field unrelated to the complainant’s specific use.


Thanks again for the insight, it helped me reframe the issue more clearly.


Best regards,
James

Attached renewal receipt
Förnyelse av domänen skogsliv.se (Renewal of the domain skogsliv.se)
16. july 2022 - 16. july 2023

Obviously I owned it in july 2021 and prior to that too. I always cgeck PRV.se for trademark so that I can publish any overlaps and explain at NordicDomains.se. I also have/am a Swedish registered company.

They also tried several times to buy the domain name from me via other comanies calling me, and then directly via Internet stiftelsen in Sweden in november. I refused each time, and the last time was on the phone, I stated several times that it was not for sale. the buyer then admitted that he was rining for holmen. Then the WIPO arrived less than 2 weeks later.

 

[Nirob Islam]

wow

 

[BrandEntrance.com]

I am so glad that you read the classic.

Published over 100 years ago and now published again by Gothenburgh Universoty online.

I just downloaded it and promise to read it as well.

Thank you so much!!!

Here we see what would be a "TM violation" of a generic term in a 100 year old classical piece of literature in association with Gothenburgh University's online retranslation and the electronic republication in 2025.

https://runeberg.org/walden/

HENRY DAVID THOREAU

SKOGSLIV VID WALDEN​

ÖVERSATT SAMT MED INLEDNINGAVFRANS G. BENGTSSONSTOCKHOLMWAHLSTRÖM & WIDSTRANDISAAC MARCUS’ BOKTR.-AKTIEBOLAGSTOCKHOLM1924

---

Förord till den elektroniska utgåvan (Foreword to this electronic edition)​

Thoreau föddes 1817 och tillbringade tiden från sommaren 1845 till hösten 1847 vid Walden, då han fyllde 30. Boken om detta Walden; or, Life in the Woods utkom 1854. Det var i en tid långt före elektricitet och många andra moderna bekvämligheter, men hans överklassliv i staden skilde sig ändå så mycket från livet i en liten stuga nära naturen, att en bok om ämnet kunde skapa sensation. Läs mer om verket i Wikipedia. Den första svenska översättningen gjordes 1924 av Frans G. Bengtsson. Tyvärr är översättningen något avkortad. Boken har i januari 2025 digitaliserats av Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek, varifrån de scannade bilderna och OCR-texten samma månad kopierades till Projekt Runeberg. Vi har vitbalanserat sidbilderna, som tyvärr är ganska suddiga.

--------------------
The Swedish translation of Walden 1854 (translated to Swedish in 1924), rendered as Skogsliv vid Walden by the established Swedish author and translator Frans G. Bengtsson, demonstrates that the term “Skogsliv” was used by a recognized literary authority as a natural linguistic construction.


Bengtsson’s standing within Swedish literature further confirms that the term reflects ordinary language usage rather than any proprietary or commercially distinctive designation.

This is 102 years before. But the language has shown usage of this generic word since the 1500's.

I also found other magazine publications from the 1980's in swedish with this name.

a swedish series for members of the swedish forest society (skogsförening) from about 20+ years ago up to the near present.