WIPO - Big Risk Rewarded |
101 Domain WIPO – Big Risk Rewarded


Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., of Medford, Wisconsin filed a WIPO for the domain name, owned by Lori Phan. In a decision reached on October 10, 2007, the single WIPO panelist found in favor of the Respondent, and the complaint was denied.

I believe the domain owner took a risk by not requesting a 3 member panel. Although she did a great job of presenting her case, it could have easily gone the other way based on some previous decisions. I think it is always best to ask (and pay) for a 3 member WIPO panel because it means the Complainant needs to convince 2 of 3 people that they are right. Having a single panelist is more risky, in my opinion, especially for a high value name like

If the domain name is worth much more than the cost of the 3 member WIPO panel, I would think it would be best to request it.

About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of 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 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 (6)

    Ms Domainer

    In the first place, that complaint was so bogus.

    Companies are now going after generic domains?

    IMO, that complaint should have been thrown out without comment.

    Ms Domainer

    Crazy, right? Also check out the decision.

    October 25th, 2007 at 12:57 pm


    How much does a 3 member panel cost roughly?


    Acccording to the WIPO website:

    “For a case filed with the WIPO Center involving between 1 and 5 domain names that is to be decided by a single Panelist, the fee is USD1500. For a case that is to be decided by 3 Panelists, the fee is USD4000.”

    October 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pm


    UDRP really needs to be rewritten to somehow avoid ridiculous cases like this. It just makes anyone with good generic domain names a walking target for anyone with $1,500 who wants to play URDP lottery.


    EXACTLY! Even though the majority of these cases are rightfully won by the Respondent, it could still cost upwards of $10,000 to defend it. The legal fees will run somewhere around $5,000 from what I hear, and paying for a 3 person panel instead of 1 can run a few thousand dollars. It really sucks.

    This is one of the main reasons why development is becoming more important. I think companies would be more reticent to go after a generic domain name that is developed than a parked page. A developed website looks more legitimate, and most companies would probably respect this. I think alot of companies look at parked pages as “wasted,” even though precidents have been set saying otherwise.

    I would rather spend $10,000 building a website/business than a similar amount defending a parked page.

    October 25th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    Geoff Goedde

    Seems to be a HUGE opportunity for a parking company; eg, offer “protection” to generic-owners for say $10/year. Create a pool. Contract with pitbull lawyers to countersue for millions…business disruption, stalking, plus whatever other complaints can be imagined.

    If this approach is used against businesses (commercial entities), I would suggest the cost of the “discovery” process alone, will cause many to forego any action that can be judged to be “without merit.” (The Court requests you turn over copies of all correspondence – both paper and electronic – for the last 2 years, etc.)

    Only when reverse-hijackers are forced to pay, will this practice (we used to call it piracy) be eliminated, imho.

    October 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am

    Associated Domains

    Really appreciate you covering these WIPO/UDRP cases on your blog. It’s important to be aware of/know about these cases if you’re a domainer.

    October 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    Lori Phan

    Unfortunately the URDP Complainant’s can plead whatever they feel will get WIPO’s attention. In doing so, the burden of proof is on the Respondent (me in this case) and so is the cost. It cost almost two hundred dollars just to snail mail the minimal Reponse that I did. My original (unedited for shipping costs) response was much more detailed but I simply could not afford to mail it overseas. Much less the $3000 to upgrade to a Three Member Panel. :(


    Congrats on winning the decision and thanks for writing. It’s scary to think how easily someone can file a UDRP against a generic domain name.

    November 19th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *