scales_of_justice2-138x150A recent decision by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in BlankPage AG v. Walleed Altywaijri over the domain name provides a pointed lesson in how NOT to file a UDRP Complaint.

The Complainant, BlankPage AG of Zürich, Switzerland, brought a UDRP action against the respondent based on BlankPage’s rights in the mark KEETAB. BlankPage holds an International Trademark Registration for the mark covering goods/services related to data processing.

Blank Page however filed its Complaint without articulating any basis for finding evidence of bad faith, simply inserting the words “Not Applicable” into the area of its Complaint where it should have put in its arguments.  The decision reads in an understandably mocking tone as the panelist, Mr. Tony Willoughby, points out the litany of reasons that the Complaint fails, namely:

  1. Attaching only one exhibit to the Complaint, the WhoIs search result showing that was created in July, 2004;
  2. No details of the Complainant or its business other than its address and trade mark registration;
  3. No details or evidence regarding “alleged” attempts to contact Respondent;
  4. No evidence of an allegedly damaging webpage on that was connected prior to it being taken down by the Registrar;
  5. No indication as to the date of the Complainant’s trade mark registration, nor any explanation as to the fact that the domain name was created eight (8) years before the KEETAB mark; and
  6. No evidence concerning bad faith conduct.

BlankPage’s lackadaisical complaint is a good illustration of why it is important to marshal relevant evidence to support your claim.

Truth is that a UDRP Complaint is not rocket science, simply asking the right questions and using an effective platform (like the DomainSkate platform) can help a complainant file a proper UDRP Complaint in a timely and cost effective manner...