The bankruptcy transaction did not deliver the domain name, and the UDRP ruling dismissed the appeal of InlandBoatClub.com

Recently, a dispute case surrounding the domain name InlandBoatClub.com has attracted the attention of the domain name trading market and the legal community. The domain name, which should have been transferred smoothly due to the bankruptcy of the company, was deadlocked during the transaction and was finally ruled through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The incident originated from the bankruptcy of the company to which InlandBoatClub.com belongs.

According to the bankruptcy procedure, the assets of the company were transferred to the new owner Charles Westover two years ago, but the domain name InlandBoatClub.com was not transferred as agreed.

In desperation, Westover filed a complaint with the UDRP on February 25, 2025, trying to obtain the domain name through this channel.

He said that through the bankruptcy acquisition, he not only owned the common law trademark rights of "Inland Boat Club", but also submitted a trademark application (currently still under review), and continued to use the name in commercial activities, inheriting the goodwill and brand awareness of the company before bankruptcy. In addition, Westover claimed that it had reached a domain name transfer agreement with the original owner Erik Blomquist and paid the corresponding amount, but Blomquist did not fulfill the transfer obligation.

Faced with the accusation, Blomquist denied it all.

After trial, Commissioner Alan L. Limbury believed that although the domain name was the same as the name claimed by Westover, he failed to prove that "Inland Boat Club" had become a common law trademark through commercial use (no trademark right will be generated if the trademark application is not approved).

At the same time, the domain name was registered early, and Blomquist had legitimate business interests in the domain name before the company was transferred to Westover, so it cannot be determined that his registration and use of the domain name was malicious.

However, as the former owner, Blomquist no longer has legal rights to the domain name. In the end, because Westover failed to prove all three elements required by the UDRP policy, the Commissioner decided to dismiss its claim and the domain name still belongs to Blomquist.

The Commissioner finally pointed out that the contractual issues between the two parties are more suitable for resolution by a court with jurisdiction.