Refusal to Sell and ‘Passive Holding’ Didn’t Establish Cybersquatting, WIPO Panel Finds

SWITZERLAND – A Danish renewable energy company that tried repeatedly to buy WindSpace.com has lost its bid to obtain the domain through a cybersquatting complaint, with a WIPO panel finding that the proceeding itself constituted reverse domain name hijacking.

The dispute offers a clear lesson for prospective domain buyers: an owner’s refusal to sell – or failure to answer purchase inquiries – does not establish an entitlement to the domain.

In WindSpace A/S v. Acciona, SA, WIPO Case No. D2026-3753, panelist Sebastian M.W. Hughes denied the complaint after examining a registration history that began years before the complainant entered business.

WindSpace A/S has operated in Denmark’s renewable energy sector since 2006, developing wind and solar parks under the WINDSPACE name. It applied for its Danish trademark on September 29, 2009, and obtained registration on May 17, 2010.

WindSpace.com, however, was registered on December 17, 1999, by Terranova, a Spanish renewable energy company. The domain supported a website promoting Terranova’s business from at least 2003 through December 2014. Acciona acquired Terranova’s business, following its merger with Cesa, in 2006.

That history placed the original domain registration seven years before the complainant began operating.

Purchase Offers Did Not Establish Bad Faith

The complainant first approached Acciona about buying WindSpace.com on September 21, 2009 – eight days before filing its Danish trademark application.

Acciona rejected the offer the following month. Further purchase approaches in 2014 and through a GoDaddy broker in 2022 went unanswered.

The complainant cited those unsuccessful efforts as part of its case that the domain had been registered and used in bad faith. It also argued that the domain’s extended inactivity demonstrated a lack of rights or legitimate interests.

Acciona countered that its decision to leave the domain inactive reflected internal business strategy. It also maintained that “windspace” had a natural connection to wind energy and that unsolicited purchase offers did not demonstrate any intention on its part to sell.

The panel found that the registration chronology defeated the allegation of bad faith targeting. When Terranova registered the domain in 1999, the complainant had neither begun its business nor established the trademark rights on which its complaint relied.

The subsequent acquisition of Terranova’s business in 2006 also preceded the complainant’s trademark application and its first purchase approach.

Inactivity Did Not Erase Legitimate History

The domain’s later inactivity did not overcome those facts. Under the UDRP, passive holding can support a finding of bad faith in appropriate circumstances. But an inactive website does not automatically make a domain registration abusive.

Here, the panel considered the natural connection between “windspace” and renewable energy, the domain’s registration history, and its documented use for an operating business.

Those circumstances undermined the attempt to treat an idle domain as evidence of cybersquatting. The absence of a current website did not erase its earlier legitimate use or establish that it had originally been registered to target the Danish company.

Panel Finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The panel went beyond denying the requested transfer. Hughes found that the legally represented complainant should have recognized that it could not establish bad faith registration and use. The domain predated its business by seven years, and the surrounding circumstances did not support its passive holding argument.

The panel therefore found that the complaint had been brought in bad faith and constituted reverse domain name hijacking. WindSpace A/S was represented by DLA Piper Denmark Law Firm P/S. Acciona was represented by UBILIBET, S.L.

For domain owners, the distinction is consequential: a disappointed prospective buyer still must prove the elements of cybersquatting. An unanswered offer does not supply the missing evidence.

John Colascione

John Colascione is Chief Executive Officer of SEARCHEN NETWORKS®, a digital marketing and technology company founded in 2001. An entrepreneur, author, and digital publisher with more than 25 years of experience, he specializes in search engine marketing, Website Monetization, domain names, and online business development. He is the author of Mastering Your Website and publishes commentary on technology, digital marketing, and the evolving Internet economy. Read more at JohnColascione.com.