The Freename Forum

In recent UDRP proceedings before the WIPO, John Rizvi P.A. failed against John Rizvi in the dispute over the domain johnrizvi.com. Among other things, the argument that the opponent was not using the domain did not hold water.

John Rizvi P.A. ("Professional Association"), based in Florida (USA), has been offering services in the field of patent rights under the name "John Rizvi" since 2001. John Rizvi is the founder and managing partner. The company applied for the US trademark "JOHN RIZVI" for legal services in August 2023, but also refers to the trademark use of "John Rizvi" since 2001. It considers its rights to be infringed by the domain johnrizvi.com registered in January 2017. At the time of the UDRP proceedings before WIPO requested by John Rizvi P.A., the domain johnrizvi.com resolved to a pay-per-click site displaying links for charities and educational courses. The owner of the domain is John Rizvi from India, who is based in Dubai. He provided a copy of his ID during the proceedings and stated that his registrar had sent him a promotional email in 2017 encouraging him to register the domain johnrizvi.com because it matched his name. He thought it was a good idea, registered the domain and planned to develop a website about his credentials, but hadn't gotten around to it yet due to a lack of time. Australian lawyer John Swinson was appointed as the decision-maker.

Swinson dismissed the complaint because the opponent was obviously the legitimate owner of the domain and the complainant had not proven bad faith on the part of the opponent (WIPO Case No. D2024-1775). He spared himself the trouble of clarifying the question of the similarity of the trademark and domain and referred to his further statements on the opponent's right and legitimate interest in the domain as well as bad faith in the registration and use of the domain. It was quite clear to Swinson that the opponent is known by a name that corresponds to the domain. He had proven that John Rizvi was his name. He had also found him under this name on Facebook. Consequently, the complainant had not fulfilled the requirements of the second element of the UDRP. On the issue of bad faith, Swinson made it clear that the evidence presented did not suggest that the opponent's aim in registering the domain was to take advantage of or exploit the complainant's trademark. There was nothing to suggest that he knew or should have known the complainant. The opponent registered the domain because it reflected his name. The domain resolved to a parking website automatically generated by the registrar with pay-per-click advertising for charities and educational courses. There was no indication that the domain was being used in bad faith. The complainant argues that the opponent has held the domain for a long time and does not use it, which speaks for its bad faith. This, according to Swinson, was at best a weak argument that was not supported by evidence. For these reasons, Swinson considered the complaint to lack merit and dismissed it.

The UDRP decision on the domain johnrizvi.com can be found at: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/dec ... 4-1775.pdf