In a recent UDRP case, the distinction between a trademark application and an actual registration proved decisive. UDRP panelist Debrett G. Lyons dismissed a complaint brought by California-based Auradine Inc. against the domain auradine-miner.com, emphasizing that a mere application for a trademark does not equate to having enforceable rights under UDRP standards.
Background of the Case
Auradine Inc., a blockchain and AI infrastructure firm, filed a UDRP complaint on March 25, 2025, alleging that the domain auradine-miner.com infringed on its rights to the name “AURADINE.” The company had filed for a U.S. trademark on May 31, 2023, and claimed both pending registration and common law rights based on usage and investment in the brand.
The respondent, listed as “trre ger,” did not reply to the proceedings. However, Lyons focused solely on whether the complainant held valid trademark rights.
No Registered Trademark, No Case
The complainant referenced a “Notice of Allowance” issued by the USPTO, suggesting it should suffice under UDRP guidelines. However, Lyons firmly rejected this position. He clarified that:
- A Notice of Allowance is not a trademark registration.
- The required Statement of Use had not yet been filed.
- Therefore, the mark was not registered and did not meet the UDRP’s first requirement for a valid claim.
Citing the WIPO Overview 3.0 and existing jurisprudence, Lyons reaffirmed that UDRP proceedings require a registered or legally recognized (i.e., proven common law) trademark at the time of filing.
Auradine also claimed unregistered or common law trademark rights, but provided insufficient evidence to support this. Lyons concluded that neither statutory nor common law rights had been demonstrated.
Domain Remains With Respondent
Because the first prong of the UDRP test—proof of trademark rights—was not met, Lyons did not consider the remaining elements and denied the complaint.
Interestingly, although the domain auradine-miner.com was registered on March 5, 2025, it now redirects to pages controlled by Auradine Inc., suggesting a possible post-decision resolution between the parties or a sophisticated spoof site.
Key Takeaway
A trademark application—even with a Notice of Allowance—is not sufficient for UDRP protection. Only registered marks or well-supported common law trademarks qualify. This ruling underscores a fundamental legal principle echoed by both the USPTO and DPMA: Trademark protection begins at registration—not application.
News Source:domain-recht，This article does not represent our position.
