GetFixi.app domain name arbitration ruling is out: transfer request rejected, RDNH not established

WIPO recently announced the UDRP ruling on the domain name GetFixi.app: the complaint was rejected, the domain name remained in the name of the respondent, and the arbitration panel also denied the respondent's "reverse domain name hijacking" (RDNH) accusation.

Both parties in the incident

Applicant: Decos Beheer B.V., a Dutch technology company, operates the Fixi application, provides municipal problem reporting services to governments in many parts of Europe, and holds the U.S. registered trademark "FIXI" (registered in 2015) domaingang.com+1en.wikipedia.org+1.

Respondent: Sergio Nunez (Omega One Developers, Austin, Texas), operates a local U.S. roadside assistance app, also uses the "Fixi" brand, registered the GetFixi.app domain name since January 2022, and operates its services through the domain name

The applicant claimed that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, and the respondent has no legitimate rights and interests, and it also constitutes a malicious registration. However, the respondent submitted detailed evidence to show that it started to develop related services after registering the domain name, and the service scope was limited to the United States, and there was no business overlap with the applicant.

The arbitrator confirmed during the trial that although the domain name and the trademark were similar in words, the respondent submitted sufficient evidence of use, including business plans, promotional videos, App interfaces and screenshots of trademark use, and its service content was different from that of the applicant and the market did not overlap, which did not constitute malicious registration.

In addition, the respondent filed a RDNH accusation, believing that the applicant filed a complaint despite knowing that its claim was unfounded. The arbitration panel ultimately did not accept the accusation, believing that although the applicant did not win the case, it did not reach the level of obvious abuse of policy.

This case shows that in domain name disputes, legitimate independent use, regional separation and actual use evidence may all be the key to retaining the domain name. For brand owners, before initiating a UDRP complaint, they also need to fully evaluate the other party's actual use and evidence risks.