Westmore · UDRP DecisionBiotill.com
The Panel ordered transfer of biotill.com after finding it identical to the Complainant’s BIO TILL trademark, finding no rights or legitimate interests arising from the Respondent’s sale-oriented parking page, and concluding that registration of the identical domain for resale at a substantial price constituted bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind biotill.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 biotill.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how an identical domain, trademark rights predating registration, a sale-focused parking page, an above-cost purchase demand, and statements describing a portfolio acquisition strategy can combine to support all three UDRP elements. The lack of a response left the Complainant’s prima facie case on legitimate interests unrebutted, while the Panel relied on the mark’s distinctiveness and the surrounding resale evidence to infer targeting at registration.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Saddle Butte Ag, Inc. v. Hola Domains Case No. D2021-1292 1. The Parties The Complainant is Saddle Butte Ag, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondent is Hola Domains, Costa Rica. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <biotill.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameBright.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 28, 2021. On April 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 29, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 21, 2021. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on July 19, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant has since 2005 marketed and sold cover crop seeds worldwide under the trademark BIO TILL. It is the registered proprietor of United States trademark number 3446538 BIO TILL registered on June 10, 2008. The Domain Name was registered on October 1, 2016. It resolves to a web page offering the Domain Name for sale. In April 2021, the Complainant engaged in offering to purchase the Domain Name, but was met with offers to sell for consideration significantly in excess of typical out-of-pocket costs related to a domain name. According to the home page of the Respondent’s website, the Respondent has “scoured the internet to locate popular search terms and branding opportunities that will continue to increase in value. Our current portfolio is around 5,000 names […]”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical to its BIO TILL trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in its BIO TILL trademark, both by virtue of its trademark registration and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the trademark for some 15 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s BIO TILL trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has made no active use of the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but has used it for a parking page offering the Domain Name for sale for a sum significantly in excess of typical out-of-pocket costs related to a domain name. In the Panel’s view, such activity does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and has accordingly failed to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel considers it most likely that, given the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the trademark in mind when it registered the Domain Name, and that it did so with the intention of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant for a substantial sum. This view is reinforced by the indication on the Respondent’s website that the Domain Name was chosen as a result of scouring the Internet for brand names. The Panel cannot conceive of a legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. The Panel considers that the Respondent’s actions in registering a Domain Name identical to the Complainant’s trademark and offering it for sale at a substantial price amounts to paradigm cybersquatting and bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <biotill.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: August 2, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around biotill.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 WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.