Westmore · UDRP DecisionKaufmanbroad.com
The Panel dismissed the Complaint without reaching the merits because the disputed domain expired during the proceeding and was newly registered by an entity other than the named Respondent. The official order stated that the domain would remain with the Respondent.
The timeline behind kaufmanbroad.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind kaufmanbroad.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The Panel made no finding on bad-faith registration or use because it dismissed the Complaint without reaching the merits.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
Case number CAC-UDRP-100766 Time of filing 2014-02-26 16:11:01 Domain names kaufmanbroad.com Case administrator Name Lada Válková (Case admin) Complainant Organization KAUFMAN & BROAD EUROPE Complainant representative Organization Nameshield (Anne Morin) Respondent Organization Fundacion Private Whois Other Legal Proceedings N/A Identification Of Rights N/A Factual Background N/A Parties Contentions N/A Rights N/A No Rights or Legitimate Interests N/A Bad Faith N/A Procedural Factors N/A Principal Reasons for the Decision The Complaint was filed on February 26, 2014, naming as the Respondent “Fundacion Private Whois.” On the same date, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) submitted a “Request for Registrar Verification” to the Registrar, Internet.bs Corp., which replied on March 4, 2014, stating: “The domains [sic] KAUFMANBROAD.COM expired on the 29 Dec. 2013 and is in redemption period since the 10 February 2014 as such we are unable to lock it. It will be naturally deleted by the Registry after the redemption period aproximatively [sic] on the 13 March 2014.” CAC informed Complainant of same on March 5, 2014, to which Complainant responded on the same date: “We confirm to you that we maintain the proceedings.” The proceeding was therefore commenced on March 6, 2014. On March 27, 2014, CAC notified the parties of the Respondent’s default. CAC appointed the undersigned as panelist on March 28, 2014. On April 17, 2014, CAC notified the panelist that “the domain name was not renewed by the Complainant /although he was informed by the Registrar in its verification that the domain name will expire on 13 March 2014/. Therefore, it seems that the disputed domain expired during the proceeding and was newly registered on 19 March 2014 by other registrant than the Respondent.” The panelist has confirmed that the domain name is currently registered to “Domain Admin / HugeDomains.com” and is advertised for sale for $1,295. In light of the foregoing – namely, that the domain name expired during (if not prior to) the course of this proceeding and is currently registered to an entity other than the entity named as the Respondent – the panelist finds it inappropriate to render a decision on the merits and therefore exercises its power pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the UDRP (to “conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate”) to dismiss the Complaint. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Rejected and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be KAUFMANBROAD.COM: Remaining with the Respondent PANELLISTS Name Douglas M. Isenberg Date of Panel Decision 2014-04-22 Publish the Decision
Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around kaufmanbroad.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on CAC-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.