Vetronix.com domain name dispute, UDRP ruling loses the case

Recently, the ownership of the Vetronix.com domain name has attracted attention. The French registrant of the domain name, Erik Bobbink, purchased the domain name at a DropCatch auction for $361 seven years ago, and filed a trademark application and established a company shortly after registering it in 2018. However, its trademark application was rejected by the USPTO on the grounds that the term is only used to describe automotive diagnostic tools.

In January 2025, Vetronix Research Corporation submitted a UDRP complaint to the forum, attempting to obtain the Vetronix.com domain name and citing an existing trademark. However, in this UDRP dispute, after review, the panel found that the complainant failed to meet all three elements required by ICANN policy and refused to transfer the domain name Vetronix.com to the complainant, and the domain name belongs to the respondent Erik Bobbink.

The complainant claimed that it had common law rights to the "VETRONIX" trademark, and the respondent maliciously registered and used the domain name in an attempt to prevent the complainant from reflecting its trademark in the domain name, disrupting its business and misleading consumers. The respondent stated that "VETRONIX" is a common descriptive term for automotive electronics products, and that he is the registered owner of the French "VETRONIX" trademark. He obtained the domain name through a legal auction and used it to operate an active e-commerce website and engage in legitimate business activities, and was not targeting the complainant.

The panel pointed out that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent lacked rights or legal interests in the disputed domain name, nor did it prove malicious registration and use. The respondent legally owns the French trademark and the domain name is used for normal e-commerce operations. The panel could not determine that its business was illegal, so the complainant's claim was not supported.

This ruling reflects that in domain name disputes, ownership must be determined strictly based on policies and evidence to protect the legitimate rights and interests of all parties, and it also provides a reference example for similar domain name dispute cases.