By Steve Levy
One question that often surfaces in UDRP disputes is whether the amount a respondent paid for a domain name has any bearing on the bad faith analysis under Paragraph 4(a)(iii). After all, if someone spends thousands of dollars at auction, doesn’t that suggest a legitimate investment rather than cybersquatting? The recent bilibili.ai decision from the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) shows why the answer is usually no, and why a respondent’s own lack of due diligence can be far more important than the size of the transaction.
In that case, the Respondent purchased the domain name at an auction for USD $3,185.96, a fact he emphasized repeatedly in his Response. He argued that this was a transparent, competitive purchase made for “personal investments” and that the price reflected the domain name’s brandable qualities rather than any intent to target the Chinese video platform Bilibili that serves as Southeast Asia’s leading anime, comics, and games video community. But the panel was unmoved. As it noted, the substantial purchase price “does not insulate him from a finding of bad faith registration,” particularly where the domain name is identical to a highly distinctive and widely known trademark.
This is a consistent theme across UDRP jurisprudence and Panels focus on intent, not the size of the Respondent’s wallet. A cybersquatter can pay $10 or $10,000 but the question is still whether the Respondent more likely than not sought to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s mark. In bilibili.ai, the panel found it “commercially implausible” that someone would spend over $3,000 on a coined, globally recognized term like Bilibili without realizing it was a trademark. That conclusion was reinforced by the Respondent’s own admissions. In his Response he offered no alternative meaning for the term, no evidence of a naming strategy, and no explanation for why this particular term would be valuable to anyone other than the Complainant.
The panel also highlighted another increasingly important factor which is the Respondent’s failure to conduct even minimal research before bidding on the domain name. As the decision put it, “a basic Internet search at the time of the auction would have immediately revealed the Complainant’s significant global presence.” Panels routinely treat this kind of willful blindness as evidence of bad faith, especially when the domain name consists of a distinctive or famous mark. Here, the Respondent’s lack of diligence was decisive. He did not check trademark databases, did not search the term on Google or another platform, and did not investigate the domain name’s prior use. These are all steps that any prudent investor would take before spending thousands of dollars.
Ultimately, the bilibili.ai decision reinforces two key lessons. First, the amount paid for a domain name rarely helps a Respondent in a UDRP case. If anything, it can underscore the implausibility of a claimed innocent purchase. Second, failing to perform basic research before acquiring a domain can convert what a Respondent frames as an “investment” into a textbook example of bad-faith registration.