WaterTimer.com UDRP case ends with reverse domain name hijacking ruling

Recently, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center announced a UDRP case ruling that has attracted industry attention: the dispute over the domain name WaterTimer.com ended with the determination of "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" (RDNH), and the complainant's attempt to obtain the domain name through the UDRP procedure was clearly rejected by the expert group.

The complainant in this case is the Italian company Claber S.p.A., whose main business is gardening irrigation systems and supporting equipment, and holds the "WATER TIMER" trademark in many countries. The complained domain name WaterTimer.com was registered in 2001, earlier than the registration time of some of Claber's related trademarks. The holder is an American individual investor who has been pointing the domain name to a website containing gardening tool promotion content, which has been on display or for sale for a long time.

Claber claims that the domain name is highly similar to its trademark, and the holder has no legal rights and interests, and the registration and use are also malicious. However, after comprehensive review, the arbitration experts believed that the domain name registration time was earlier than some trademark applications, and the complainant failed to fully prove that the registration had malicious motives against its brand; at the same time, the common English combination "water timer" used in the domain name is descriptive and is particularly common in the irrigation field. The holder's registration of such keyword domain names for commercial purposes does not constitute preemptive registration.

More importantly, the experts pointed out that Claber, as an experienced company, should have realized that the case lacked the three elements supported by UDRP before submitting the complaint, but still insisted on initiating the procedure with the intention of obtaining the domain name through improper means. This abuse of the procedure was identified as a typical "reverse domain name hijacking".

In the end, the expert group rejected the complaint request and clearly stated in the ruling: This case constitutes reverse domain name hijacking.

This ruling provides an important protection signal for domain name holders, and once again reminds brands to fully evaluate their own rights and interests and the registration background of the relevant domain names before taking legal action. The original intention of UDRP is to combat malicious preemptive registration, rather than becoming a tool for companies to compete for high-quality common word domain names.