A egregious case of reverse domain hijacking: Complainant forged trademark documents in an attempt to seize the domain name

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center recently ruled in a domain name dispute case, dismissing the request by complainants AK Associates LLC and Alina Chung to transfer the domain name chafezero.com and finding that their actions constituted "reverse domain hijacking." Furthermore, the complainant submitted multiple forged trademark registration documents during the complaint process, a case the panel called "one of the most egregious cases we have ever seen."

The case originated in April 2025, when respondent Peter Jenkins registered the domain name chafezero.com, intending to use it for new products developed by his company, Skin Federation Pty Ltd. The company had been operating in Australia since 2019 and had launched several skincare products.

The complainant, in turn, began operating in 2022 and planned to use "CHAFEZERO" as a trademark for a specific product. On July 28 and August 13, 2025, the complainant filed two applications for the "CHAFEZERO" word mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), both designated for use in Class 3 non-medicated cream products.

As of the date of the ruling, both trademarks remained in the "pending review" status and had not been approved for registration.

Before filing the domain name dispute lawsuit, the complainant contacted the respondent through the registrar GoDaddy's brokerage service and offered to purchase the domain name for $200, but was rejected. The brokerage service responded that the offer might need to be raised to $2,500–5,000 for the respondent to reconsider. Unsuccessful in purchasing the domain, the complainant subsequently initiated UDRP proceedings.

In its complaint, the complainant claimed to have obtained registered trademark rights in the United States and submitted three documents that appeared to be from the USPTO: a "certificate" indicating the trademark registration, a "Trademark Conflict Notice" sent to the respondent, and an email granting the complainant permission to use the trademark in Australia.

However, the panel's review found all of these documents to be forged: the USPTO never issues a registration certificate the day after an application is filed, nor does it send "inquiry notices" to foreign parties, nor does it have the authority to "authorize" trademark use outside its jurisdiction.

The panel noted that the first element of a UDRP complaint is that the complainant must possess trademark rights. In this case, the complainant possessed no registered trademarks, nor did it provide any evidence of using the "CHAFEZERO" trademark and establishing a good reputation, thus failing to demonstrate any trademark rights. Furthermore, the respondent had already registered the domain name long before the complainant submitted its trademark application and had not engaged in malicious registration or use.

Based on the complainant's forged documents, false statements, and filing a complaint despite knowingly lacking a legal basis, the panel determined that the complainant abused the administrative process, filed a complaint in bad faith, and engaged in reverse domain hijacking. This ruling not only dismissed the complaint but also sent a clear signal to the public: abuse of the UDRP process is unacceptable, and the falsification of documents in an attempt to seize domain names will be severely punished.