The core of the UDRP dispute over the pets4jets.com domain is a conflict between long-term partners over control of the main domain for their international pet transportation business. Complainants Hayley Francis and Pets4Jets USA LLC claim rights to the unregistered domain name PETS4JETS, accusing consultant Romero Rochan of using the domain for business purposes for an extended period and then appropriating it for himself, even demanding $10,000 when a potential buyer emerged.
Rochan counters, stating that he had previously invested capital and provided operational support, and that his possession of the domain was solely for recovering outstanding loans and fees, not malicious preemption. Evidence shows that Francis requested Rochan to register pets4jets.com using her payment information, and for years the domain consistently pointed to Francis’s website and brand until the relationship deteriorated, the domain became available for sale, and the dispute escalated, with both sides accusing each other of “extortion” or “asset theft.”
The panel determined that PETS4JETS constitutes a common law trademark, and the domain name pets4jets.com matches it, but found no evidence of malicious registration. The panel noted that the domain was initially registered for the complainant’s benefit, and the subsequent disputes over funds and control were contractual/commercial disputes, falling outside the scope of the UDRP policy and not typical domain hijacking. The final ruling dismissed the complaint, retaining ownership of the domain. The panel also determined that the complainant did not abuse the UDRP, but merely misunderstood the policy’s scope, and therefore did not constitute reverse domain hijacking.
News Source:DomainGang ，This article does not represent our position.
