The WIPO Administrative Panel has issued its decision in the mydpboss.com domain dispute, finding that the respondent registered the domain before the complainant acquired trademark rights, that no bad-faith registration was established, and dismissing the complaint while finding that the complaint constituted an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.
On 28 10, 2026, sole panelist WIPO Meera Chature Sankhari issued the decision dismissing the request of complainant Iqbal Khan to transfer the disputed domain name <mydpboss.com> and finding that the complaint constituted reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH). Both the complainant and the respondent, Sanjay Kumar Jha, are natural persons in India, and both represented themselves; the registrar is PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The complainant holds two DPBOSS Indian trademarks: word mark No. 5893785 (Class 42, 15 4, 2023) and device mark No. 6429182 (Class 45, 13 5, 2024). The disputed domain name was registered by the respondent on 14 6, 2021.
The panel found the first element established: the domain name is confusingly similar to the DPBOSS mark, which was not disputed. It noted, however, that the domain name was registered approximately two and three years before the two trademarks. The panel cited Section 1.1.3 of the 3.1 Overview WIPO for the rule that a domain name registered before trademark rights arise does not in itself negate the complainant's standing or affect the finding of confusing similarity; but in such circumstances the complainant can prove bad faith on the part of the respondent only in exceptional cases.
Accordingly, the panel found the third element not established: there was no evidence in the record that the complainant had used DPBOSS before 14 6, 2021, nor any evidence that the respondent knew or should have known of the complainant and its trademark at that time; the respondent did not register the domain name targeting the complainant or its trademark rights. As to the second element, the panel noted only that the respondent appeared to be widely known by the domain name.
Since the registration was not in bad faith, the panel stated that it did not need to address the complainant's contention that the website violated Section 5 of the 2025 Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act of India, considering that the issue was better left to a court of competent jurisdiction.
The respondent had requested a finding of reverse domain name hijacking in its response. The panel considered that the complainant should have known it could not prove bad-faith registration; it also mentioned that the near-identical pink used for the first two letters of both parties' websites had given it some pause, but that the record still contained no evidence that the respondent could have known of the complainant at the time of registration. The panel made a further explanatory observation: the services offered and the look of the pages on the complainant's own website at dpbosse.net were the same as those of the respondent's website — an observation that does not affect the foregoing conclusions.
For the reasons set out above, the complaint is denied.
Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Case D2026-4153, sole panelist Meera Chature Sankhari, 2026 10 28.
Note: The content of this article is compiled from public information and is only general intellectual property popularization and practical observation, for information reference only; it does not constitute legal advice or other professional advice for any specific case, and the relevant determinations and conclusions should be subject to the official published documents and the actual circumstances of the individual case.
Prepared by Liangma Legalmark Trademark Team from public industry information for general information only. It is not legal advice on a specific matter. Editorial standards ↗
← Back to news