Gold Rush Reverse Hijacking Failed: Ruling in GoldRushDallas.com Case

Erik Harp d/b/a Gold Rush, a gold and precious metals dealer with offices in Texas and Colorado using the domain names goldrushhouston.com and goldrushdenver.com, recently attempted to obtain ownership of the domain name GoldRushDallas.com through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), but was unsuccessful.

The story begins in March 2010. An individual in Dallas registered the domain name GoldRushDallas.com. This registration went uncontested at the time. A few years later, Gold Rush began expanding its operations in Texas and Colorado, using the domain names goldrushhouston.com and goldrushdenver.com. At the same time, the company applied for and officially obtained the "Gold Rush" trademark in 2019, claiming that its first commercial use dates back to January 2011.

When Gold Rush noticed that GoldRushDallas.com, a similarly branded domain, was already held by someone else, they filed a UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) complaint, attempting to reclaim the domain through arbitration. However, this attempt ultimately backfired.

In his ruling, panel member Alan Limbury noted that GoldRushDallas.com was registered significantly earlier than the complainant's alleged first commercial use of the trademark. Since the trademark hadn't been used in 2010, it was unlikely that the respondent had registered the domain specifically targeting it. Limbury further stated that the complainant and its attorney must have been aware of this fact when filing the application, yet they persisted in filing the complaint. This conduct was deemed procedurally malicious and constituted an abuse of administrative procedure.

In other words, Gold Rush attempted to "strike gold" through arbitration, but the tribunal viewed it as an attempt to exploit the UDRP mechanism for reverse hijacking.

Notably, Gold Rush was represented by Leak, Douglas & Morano, PC, in this case. The domain name holders involved in the complaint did not file a response. Despite this, the arbitration panel still ruled against the complainant based on the timeline and evidence.