PFIP, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Teresa C. Tucker of Grossman, Tucker, Perreault & Pfleger PLLC, New Hampshire, has been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name hijacking in a UDRP decision on the domain name judgmentfree.com

The one member panel of David E. Sorkin found RDNH even though the domain holder didn’t even file a response and therefore didn’t even ask for a RDNH finding.

Here are the relevant facts and findings:

“PFIP uses various marks in connection with this business, including JUDGMENT FREE; JUDGMENT FREE ZONE; and PLANET FITNESS, THE JUDGEMENT FREE ZONE.

These marks are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for use in connection with physical fitness instruction and training, and Complainant also holds a registration for JUDGMENT FREE for use in connection with t-shirts.

Complainant states that it has used its JUDGMENT FREE and JUDGMENT FREE ZONE marks for over sixteen years, and asserts that the marks have become famous as a result of Complainant’s marketing efforts and the growth of its franchising business.”

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name judgmentfree.com, registered by Respondent in April 2014, is identical or confusingly similar to its JUDGMENT FREE and JUDGMENT FREE ZONE marks

To have registered the domain name in bad faith, Respondent must have been aware of Complainant or its mark when Respondent registered the domain name, and the registration must in some way have been targeted at Complainant or its mark.

To find for Complainant in this case, therefore, the Panel would need to infer that Respondent registered the domain name with Complainant or one of its marks in mind, and that Respondent is using the domain name with the intent to create confusion with Complainant’s marks. Neither of these inferences is supported by the evidence. Complainant uses its marks in connection with its Planet Fitness clubs in the United States, and makes no claim that the marks are known elsewhere; Respondent is located in Switzerland.

Furthermore, as a cursory Internet search readily demonstrates (even when the search is performed within the United States), Complainant’s JUDGMENT FREE mark corresponds to a relatively common phrase in the English language, one that seemingly is used much more commonly in other senses than it is as a mark associated with Complainant.

Finally, the printout of Respondent’s web page submitted by Complainant does not support its allegations either. It appears to be merely a standard default parking page generated by GoDaddy.com, the registrar. Complainant does not specify which of the linked sites on that page are claimed to compete with Complainant’s business, and the Panel is unable to identify any links having anything whatsoever to do with Complainant or its industry. (As noted above, the links and advertisements contained on that page all appear to relate to travel and tourism, dietary supplements, financial services, virtual office space, or domain name registration services.)

The Panel therefore concludes that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proving that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

As noted above, the inferences upon which Complainant’s case rests are unsupported by the evidence, and Complainant’s assertion regarding the website to which the disputed domain name resolves are belied by its own evidence. Complainant and its counsel are experienced participants in the UDRP process, and each independently should have recognized that Complainant’s claim was groundless.

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.