MagicMenLive.com Arbitration Case: Australian Company Found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently published a case concerning a domain name dispute involving an adult entertainment brand, MagicMenLive.com. Following a panel hearing, the arbitration panel found that Magic Men Holdings Pty Ltd, an Australian company, had committed reverse domain name hijacking, and its complaint against American individual Myles Hass was dismissed.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed with WIPO in August 2025, alleging that MagicMenLive.com was confusingly similar to its "MAGIC MEN" trademark and had been registered in bad faith by the defendant. The company operates the "Magic Men" male cabaret brand in Australia and owns the Australian trademark, which was registered in 2014. The complainant argued that the defendant had not used the domain name fairly and that the website had been inactive for an extended period, constituting "passive possession."

However, the respondent, Myles Hass, presented a completely different factual claim: he has been holding live shows in the United States under the name "Magic Men Live" since 2012 and has registered related trademarks in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, with the US registration predating the complainant's trademark. Hass provided performance records, brochures, and social media evidence to prove that he was the earliest user of the brand in the adult entertainment sector and registered the domain name "MagicMenLive.com" in 2015 to facilitate brand promotion.

After verification, the arbitration expert determined that the respondent indeed predated the complainant in both trademark registration and commercial use, and that the two parties' businesses were located in completely different geographic locations: one was located in Australia, while the other primarily operated in the United States. There was no direct evidence of competition or confusion between the two parties. The expert stated that registering and using a domain name to support commercial activities that predate another's trademark rights does not constitute bad faith.

More importantly, the expert discovered that the complainant had privately contacted the respondent multiple times before initiating arbitration, inquiring about the possibility of acquiring the domain name and related social media accounts. Correspondence revealed that the complainant was aware of the respondent's ownership of the brand and its trademark rights, yet concealed this fact in its complaint and alleged that the respondent had registered the domain name in bad faith. The Panel found that this concealment and misleading conduct violated the UDRP's principle of good faith.

Ultimately, the WIPO ruling:

Dismissed all of Magic Men Holdings Pty Ltd's claims;

Confirmed the respondent's legitimate interest in MagicMenLive.com;

Declared that the complainant's actions constituted reverse domain hijacking and an abuse of the UDRP procedure.