Generic Domain Name Hit With A UDRP From Owner Of

The domain name has just been hit with a UDRP

The complainant is Original Buff, S.A. which owns a Trademark on the term Buff in many countries but seems like the main one is spain.

In the US it looks like the trademark was just filed in 2011.

It looks like Buff’s offical site is at

Looks like Buff makes scarves and buffs like you see on Survivor.

The domain is owned by Buff Blog with a current creation date of 1997.

The domain is not active and goes to a 404 page.

According to it may have been this way for a long time.

It will be an interesting one, we will keep our eye on it


  1. says

    just the idea that this goes to UDRP proves the process is broken, and names that are same status always have different results, a truly bad useless expensive system that is not even close to working, a monkey can throw darts and get it right as often

  2. Michael H. Berkens says

    UDRP reform will happen

    I don’t know if its this year or next or several years but it will.

    However their are decisions Trademark holders are just as unhappy about so change may not make it better for domain holders.

    Again Phil Corwin of the ICA will be just one of the few standing up for domain holders rights in that process.

  3. says

    A friend of mine had a great idea. Have the people filing the udrp put up a bond for 10 to 20K to cover the expenses of the registrant to help prevent against reverse hijacking. It’s horrible that people invest in a domain, spend several years or more paying registration fees and then face losing a domain.

  4. BrianWick says

    “Have the people filing the udrp put up a bond for 10 to 20K to cover the expenses ”

    That will take considerable work away from WIPO, NAF and most importantly Panelists and the Lawyers representing both sides –

    Not in a Trillion years :)

  5. Michael H. Berkens says


    I think the best solution may lie in a loser pays system.

    I think The TM guys like it too

    For generic domain holders it would be great for typo guys it would be horrible but seems like the only fair solution

  6. Ron says

    Why would they change the system UDRP panelists are making big bucks for deciding mickey mouse type cases, this day and age, to see this sort of fraud happen is really sickening…

  7. dodger says

    I’ve won three domains through the UDRP process, all are one-word .com’s. I have a process for this which is legal and fits within ICANN’s guidelines. The three domains are worth a total of between $400,000 to $2,500,000 (third-party estimates).

    I have two additional domains that are in the pipeline so to speak (in various stages of my “process”).

    With brains and guts, one can do the most interesting of things.

  8. says

    Another ridiculous one.

    I will point it out once again…

    If ICANN can’t come up with a better system after many years, do you really trust them to manage the gTLD program?

    The process is so stacked against registrants. Best case scenario they get to spend thousands defending their domain. Worst case they get some moron panelist like the dispute who turns over a potential million dollar asset with no accountability.

    These are the changes I think need to be made, at minimum –

    1.) UDRP actions should always be deferred to court if there is a pending case.
    UDRP has no legal jurisdiction, it is an arbitration panel. This was a major issue in the case, yet other panels recently did the right thing.

    2.) There needs to be a serious penalty for bringing frivolous disputes. UDRP was designed for obvious TM cases, not to steal generic assets.

    Right now even with a RDNH finding there is no penalty.

    3.) There needs to be a step in the process where the panelist can ask questions for clarification to both the complainant and respondent, like in an actual court.

    4.) There needs to be a certain bar to cross to even make it to a panelist.

    5.) There needs to be an appeals process.

    6.) All panelists should be forced to take a training class designed by ICANN. There should be clear precedents established. Right now you can have the exact opposite rulings on the whim of (1) panelist.

    7.) There needs to be a different funding system established. The complainant basically paying the judge creates a potential conflict of interest to start with.


  9. toomanysecrets says


    I know who you are…I’ll leave it at that.


    Step One: Identify the target domain (to be UDRP’d)
    Step Two: Make sure domain is parked, with ads, or doesn’t resolve at all, or is held by registrant in Asia.
    Step Three: Start a company, get a trademark, even a small biz
    Step Four: Either wait for domain to change hands (sell), or pay for google ads on your term to show-up on domain parked page
    Step Five: File the UDRP
    Step Six: I know this from the inside- you have a 50/50 chance at winning the UDRP. Wait two years, keep the facade of a biz, then quietly sell the domain.

    Minimum value of target domains for the “UDRP Process” as coined by HJR, is $100,000.

    I’ve only done it once, then stopped. There are a handfull of rich,’ers who are doing this fulltime for fun.

  10. Philip Corwin says

    @Brad — Those are all good subjects for UDRP reform, if we ever get there. Under pressure from trademark interests ICANN decided that UDRP reform should not be initiated until 18 months after the first launch of new gTLDs. That originally meant mid-2014 — but now that the first new gTLD is unlikely to be open until early 2014, we are looking at mid-2015. That is really unacceptable for the only major ICANN policy that has never been reviewed since starting more than a decade ago.

    That is why we have to keep fighting any and all efforts to convert the Uniform Rapid Suspension(URS) mechanisms for new gTLDs into a substitute for rather than a narrow supplement to the UDRP – if the TM folks ever get a lower burden of proof and a transfer option for URS they will have everything they want and will use every lever available to block UDRP reform.

    Placing all UDRP arbitration providers under standard contract remains a critical necessity, and the process of drafting such a document would require dealing with the majority of domain investor issues. It remains an outrage that ICANN has accredited UDRP providers to transfer or extinguish domains without any standards or contractual enforcement mechanisms.

  11. Anon says


    Why? Welcome to hard, cruel, ruthless world we all live in.
    You should’ve been paying attention to the public sunrise of .in domains back in 2005, where bogus shell trademarks were registered to gain control of the most premium terms.

    Domainers who own generic domains and leave them parked are seriously vulnerable to overlapping TM holders. It’s always been this way. Since acquiring a TM on a generic term is a lot cheaper than obtaining the same thing in .com, is it any shock that this happens? All those PPC autofeeds can be externally manipulated to stuff your dick right in the meat grinder.

    Google “Intellectual Property Investigations”. There are consultancies out there who get paid large sums of money by huge corporations to facilitate exactly this sort of thing.

Comment Policy: welcomes reader comments. Please follow these simple rules:

  • Stay on topic
  • Refrain from personal attacks
  • Avoid profanity
  • Links should be related to the topic of the post
  • No spamming. Listing domains, products, or services will get the comment deleted

We reserve the right to remove comments if we deem it necessary.

Join the Discussion