The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (“the Centre”) one of the “new” UDRP providers returned the allegedly stolen domain name IDA.com to World Hair Cosmetics Co Ltd, of Hong Kong which owned the domain since  2005.

The panel writes:

“In April, 2014, the Complainant discovered that its account with GoDaddy.com had been hacked and that, as a result, the Registrar had been changed to PublicDomain Registry Ltd and the Complainant was no longer the registrant.

The Complainant has complained of cybercrime to the Hong Kong police and to the FBI.

The domain was registered in 2005 and “renewed that registration in September, 2010 until 2018.”

Some UDRP panels have refused to award a “stolen” domain name back to the registrant on the basis that the situation falls outside of the UDRP enviroment, however the Centre had no such problem in finding a way to get the domain returned to the rightful owner.

In a very short opinion the Centre found the IDA mark to be is distinctive and well known.

“”The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the domain name on the part of the Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name: Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624 and the cases there cited.

The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
There is no dispute that the domain name had been registered to the Complainant until 2018 and came to be registered to the Respondent and resolve to a reseller website as a result of an unauthorized transfer from GoDaddy.com to the present Registrar.

Under these circumstances it is clear that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has established this element of its case.

Having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain name should be TRANSFERRED to the Complainant.””