How can it be that the Respondent in Ric Jo Swaningson v. thu lins, FA0905001264365 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2009) forfeited its three letter choice for domain name, ? The burden for proving trademark status for an unregistered acronym is satisfied by offering evidence of distinctiveness, but not otherwise. It makes no difference whether the respondent appears, but if there is evidence of secondary meaning, and in Ric Jo there was, and the respondent fails to explain its choice or defaults the respondent forfeits the domain name. This was illustrated in two cases discussed in the Note for June 18. The analysis in these cases is no different than expected for determining rights to the use of generic terms. See Weatherford Int’l, Inc. v. Wells, FA 153626 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (“Although Complainant asserts common law rights in the WELLSERV mark, it failed to submit any evidence indicating extensive use or that its claimed mark has achieved secondary source identity . . . [Complainant’s claim that it is well known] is a finding that must be supported by evidence and not self-serving assertions.”)

Ric Jo, however, has interest on a different level. The fact that the case involved an acronym is by the way. Rather, the case deals with misappropriation of a domain nanem. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent illegally hacked its account and “fraudulently substituted Respondent’s information for Complainant’s.”

The case is an apt illustration of the reach of the UDRP beyond the traditional misappropriation of trademark. The violation is not simply abusive registration; the Complainant alleges illegality and fraud in misappropriating the domain name itself. The Panel does not question her jurisdiction to determine the issue, but simply ordered the domain name restored to the Complainant.