EDP.com Subject of UDRP | DomainInvesting.com

EDP.com Subject of UDRP (Updated)

2

EDP.com UDRP

A UDRP has been filed against the valuable three letter EDP.com domain name. The case was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization, and it is WIPO case D2016-1536. The complainant in this UDRP is a company called EDP – Energias de Portugal, S.A.

Whois records show that the domain name is currently owned by a registrant in China. When I attempted to visit EDP.com, the domain name did not resolve for me. I looked at Archive.org, and I do not see any archived records since 2014.

I did a Historical Whois search at DomainTools, and here is where it gets a bit interesting. According to a DomainTools historical Whois record from September of 2014, the registrant of the domain name at that time is listed as EDP – ENERGIAS DE PORTUGAL, S.A. This matches the name of the company that filed the UDRP. I believe this company uses the EDP.pt ccTLD for its website.

Out of curiosity, I checked my email records to see if the domain name was ever listed for sale by any brokers, and I do not see anything in my email that would indicate it was marketed for sale. I also checked NameBio, and I do not see any public sales records.

Due to the provenance of this domain name, I would not be surprised to learn that this was either a stolen domain name or someone without authorization sold or transferred the domain name. I don’t really see why a company that once owned a domain name would file a UDRP on that particular domain name, especially when the domain name does not appear to be used right now.

Once the UDRP decision is rendered, we will see why this UDRP was filed and learn more about the domain name. I will share an update once the decision is published.

Update: Although the decision has not yet been published online, the panel ruled in favor of the complainant, according to UDRPSearch.com. I will share more once I read the decision.


About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has sold seven figures worth of domain names in the last five years. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest.


Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | | Facebook | Email

Comments (2)

    Josh

    Interesting stuff, why wait 2 years to file?

    July 29th, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    Elliot Silver

    It does appear that this was an issue involving a stolen domain name, and the complainant won the UDRP. Here is the relevant section of the UDRP decision http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-1536

    “The Complainant asserts that, on September 10, 2014, it was informed by the then registrar of the disputed domain name that the disputed domain name was being transferred. The Complainant immediately engaged technical consultants in order to try to prevent the transfer, but was unsuccessful in preventing the transfer. The Complainant subsequently filed a complaint with ICANN contractual compliance, but was informed by ICANN, on September 22, 2014, that, as the described facts concerned a private dispute with a third party, ICANN had reviewed and closed the Complainant’s complaint.

    The Complainant does not know how the Respondent was able to effect the transfer, and how the then registrar’s security measures were breached.

    It is however clear that, on the undisputed facts and assertions in this proceeding, the Respondent was somehow able to circumvent the then registrar’s security measures in order to unlawfully effect the transfer of the disputed domain name from the Complainant to the Respondent.

    Although the Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name, the circumstances of this proceeding, including the fraudulent transfer of the disputed domain name, demonstrate that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant and of its rights in the Trade Mark at the time of the Respondent’s transfer of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, under the circumstances, the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use for purposes of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.2).”

    November 2nd, 2016 at 1:37 pm

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *

Website