UDRP Filed Against Oger.com (Updated) | DomainInvesting.com
101 Domain

UDRP Filed Against Oger.com (Updated)



A UDRP has been filed against the Oger.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This UDRP is WIPO Case D2016-2488.

Oger.com was created back in 1998. The domain name is registered to an entity called Oger Investments, and the domain registrant’s address is in Australia. Acc0rding to a website called AUCompany.org, there is an Australian company called Oger Investments, Pty., which the website says was incorporated in 1997.

Using DomainTools’ Whois History Tool, I looked back through the years, and it appears this same registrant has owned the domain name for quite some time. In fact, the first archived Whois record is from 2001, and it shows the registrant as Oger Investments. It is very possible that this domain name has been owned by the same entity even before that.

When I visited Oger.com this morning, I was taken to what appears to be a registrar-controlled “under construction” page. One issue, perhaps, is the links on the under construction page are clothing related. Because the domain registrant doesn’t control those links nor generates revenue from them (to my knowledge), it would be unfortunate if this played a role in the decision.

The UDRP complaint was filed by Oger Lusink. I searched Google for this name, and it appears that it is a store in the Netherlands (according to a non-English Wikipedia article). Looking through Google a bit more, it looks like this business operates on the Oger.NL, a ccTLD domain name. I can see why the company would want to have Oger.com.

As a four letter pronounceable .com domain name, Oger.com has a decent amount of intrinsic value. A Google search shows quite a few unrelated results for “oger,” so it would seem there are other entities that would value this domain name, beyond its value as a 4 letter .com domain name. In fact, there are quite a few companies that have Oger in their business name (Saudi Oger, Oger Systems, and Oger International are a few examples). Estibot says Oger.com is worth $15,000.

In order to win the UDRP, the complainant would need to prove that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith (among other aspects). I don’t know how this can be proven if the registrant is called Oger Investments and has owned the domain name for over 15 years.

I will be following this UDRP and will post an update when a decision is published.

3.31 Update: According to UDRPSearch.com, the UDRP has been “terminated.” The domain name now forwards to Oger.nl, so it would seem a deal has been struck between the parties. As of this moment, it does not appear that the Whois has changed. I don’t have any information but will provide another update if I learn anything else.

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 (4)

    Andrea Paladini

    I’ve done a quick search and it looks Oger Lusink has many TMs on the word “OGER”, including one registered in 1989 for Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) in class 25 (clothing) and another (also word TM) in 1996 for the entire European Union in classes 3,25,40,42 (Source: European Trademark and Design Network, tmdn.org).
    As far as I can see, they have no TMs in US or in Australia (Source: USPTO, ATMOSS) for the term “OGER”.
    IMHO, anyway, parking the domain with ads was not a good idea, this way complainant could prove bad faith in use (there are ads related to clothing).
    I think the key issue here is how panelists will consider the geo extension/coverage of the complainant’s TMs.
    Just my 2 cents 🙂

    December 9th, 2016 at 10:42 am

      Elliot Silver

      “parking the domain with ads was not a good idea,”

      From what I can see, it looks like the ads were generated by the domain registrar and not the domain owner. I don’t think the domain owner benefits from these PPC links since it is an “under construction” page.

      In reply to Andrea Paladini | December 9th, 2016 at 10:49 am

      Andrea Paladini

      “I don’t think the domain owner benefits from these PPC links since it is an “under construction” page.”
      I know he doesn’t benefit from them, they are automatically served by NetSol.
      But that’s one more reason not to park it on an Under Construction” page, there are many ways to park it without any ads, even generated by the registrar.
      Parking is fully under Registrant responsibility, there are many solutions to avoid to show ads. 🙂

      In reply to Elliot Silver | December 9th, 2016 at 4:16 pm


    It sure took them along enough to demand the domain. I am sure a smart lawyer for the defendant will mention laches. (unreasonable delay in claiming trademark rights.)

    December 10th, 2016 at 2:17 pm

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *