Eric
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2020
- Topics
- 19
- Posts
- 118
- Likes
- 51
Owning a Trademark Doesn’t Guarantee You’ll Win a Domain Dispute - Brandsec
A recent WIPO decision involving rams.com is a timely reminder for brand owners navigating high-value domain acquisitions. Despite decades of trademark use and global recognition, the Los Angeles Rams failed to recover the domain under the UDRP. The issue was not trademark rights, but the inability to prove bad faith.
The facts matter.
The registrant acquired rams.com in 2022 for approximately CAD 50,000, which was consistent with market pricing for short, four-letter dictionary domains. The domain was listed for sale, and the owner later received a genuine third-party offer of USD 2 million from an unrelated business operating under the name “Rams.” Following that approach, the registrant’s broker contacted the Los Angeles Rams with a higher asking price, effectively testing the market. The panel found that this conduct, including attempts to create competitive interest, did not amount to bad faith.
This decision reinforces a critical point. Selling a domain, even aggressively, is not the same as cybersquatting. Dictionary words and common acronyms can have legitimate value independent of any single brand. The UDRP is designed to address abusive registrations, not to override market pricing or penalise domain investors simply because a domain is valuable.
One practical takeaway for brands is to be careful about signalling purchase intent before pursuing enforcement. Making an offer or entering negotiations can weaken a later claim that a domain has no legitimate value outside your trademark. In many cases, a well-informed acquisition strategy, grounded in precedent and market reality, delivers a better outcome than a dispute.
Edit reason: spelling
