The Complainant is based in Thailand. The Complainant has owned trademark registrations for EDITPAD in the EU, UK and the US since 2025. The US trademark notes its first use in commerce in July 2000.<\/p>\n
The Complainant created the EditPad product in 1996. He has used the term EditPad for his on-line editing tools since 2000, and has held the domain names <editpadclassic.com>, <editpadpro.com>, and <editpadlite.com>since 2000.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <editpad.org> was created on 30 November 2006 using a privacy service. The original registrant was based in Germany. In September 2021, the disputed domain name was offered for sale by auction on the Sedo site. There was one bid to purchase it for €30,000.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is based in Pakistan and controls the company Enzipe UK Limited.<\/p>\n
The Respondent filed with the Response the Sedo, Purchase and Sale Agreement of 01\/09\/2021 between the original registrant, Thomas Churn, and Maxed Out Social Media for the purchase of the disputed domain name for €30,000.<\/p>\n
The date the Respondent became the registrant was not specified in the registrar verification. On 6 August 2026, the Registrar, GoDaddy, confirmed that the disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent “since at least 8\/8\/2024”.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive registered and common law trademarks for EDITPAD.<\/p>\n The Complainant claims that he has used the EDITPAD mark since 1996 in the online space and on websites accessible worldwide. His domain names <jgsoft.com>, registered since 22 December 1998, and <just-great-software.com>, registered on 14 July 2001 are used for his websites referring EditPad.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant’s rights when he acquired the disputed domain name Respondent. The Complainant has submitted evidence of his use of the term EditPad since 1996 and states the amount of €30,000 paid for the disputed domain name is a measure of the well-established reputation, goodwill and search demand already attached to the Complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n When the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name, the Respondent was listed on the <prepostseo.com> website as the website developer and offered various SEO (search engine optimisation) services under his own name. The Complainant asserts that such a person would have conducted screening prior to purchasing the disputed domain name and would have determined that the disputed domain name was identical or very similar to the Complainant’s mark and have a high value.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and states:<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the Respondent acquired and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith and states:<\/p>\n In the Complainant’s further submission, he notes that the Purchase and Sale Agreement filed with the Response is between the original registrant and the buyer, Maxed Out Social Media on 21 September 2021. There is no explanation of the chain of title between the purported agreement date and when the Respondent acquired it.<\/p>\n Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent contends that there are no grounds for the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. He asserts that disputed domain name registration predates the registration date of the Complainant’s trademarks and postdates his purchase of the disputed domain name in 2021.<\/p>\n The Respondent claims he has rights in the disputed domain name and states it is irrelevant that he is not the original proprietor. He states he became aware of the disputed domain name during the course of his business and purchased it and the existing website in good faith around September 2021. Since its acquisition, he has continued to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of an online notepad and has expanded <editpad.org> services by adding more functionality and niche editing tools. He states that the website has been in operation since 2007. He has not claimed any affiliation with the Complainant and is willing to take reasonable steps in other channels to mitigate potential confusion.<\/p>\n He claims that “Edit” and “Pad” are ordinary English words with descriptive meaning and he cannot monopolise descriptive words.<\/p>\n The Respondent admits that there has been some use of the EditPad sign by the Complainant since 1996, but the scale and geographical spread are impossible to determine. The Respondent says the sales of EditPad were de minimus<\/em>. He denies he would have been aware of the Complainant and his rights when he acquired the disputed domain name and denies that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.<\/p>\n The Respondent states that he searched the trademark register and no trademark was registered. He asserts that even if he had been aware of the Complainant’s use of the sign EditPad when the disputed domain name was purchased, that fact would be irrelevant given that he was purchasing a domain name and associated website that had been in operation concurrently with the Complainant’s use, apparently without any complaint from the Complainant, for approximately 15 years.<\/p>\n The Respondent claims the disputed domain was sold for €30,000 on 21\/09\/2021, and the Respondent does not lose the earlier date of acquisition in 2006 as it stands in the former owner’s shoes.<\/p>\n The Respondent asserts the Complainant was aware of the Respondent’s site and services before filing his trademark application and cites the WIPO Overview that panels will not normally find bad faith where the disputed domain name was acquired or registered before the complainant’s trademark rights accrued. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant is reverse domain name hijacking on the basis that the Complainant’s trademark registrations post-date the disputed domain name’s 2006 creation and the website’s operation since 2007.<\/p>\n The Respondent denies that his website makes use of third-party software without authorisation.<\/p>\n Lastly, the Respondent’s further submission claims he acquired the disputed domain name on 15 January 2021.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " On 1 August 2026, the Complainant filed a request for permission to file a brief additional submission to correct factual assertions in the Response that were not foreseeable when filing the Complaint. On 3 August 2026, the Respondent filed its opposition to the request. Some of the evidence submitted with the Response and the allegation of reverse domain name hijacking were not things the Complainant could have reasonably contemplated when filing the Complaint. To allow both parties to properly present their case, the Panel issued a Procedural Order on 4 August 2026 exercising the powers granted under the UDRP Rules, paragraph 10 (General Powers of the Panel) and paragraph 12 (Further Statements) allowing the Complainant to file an additional submission and the Respondent to respond. The Complainant filed a further submission in reply on 7 August 2026. No further submission was received from the Respondent.<\/p>\n On 14 August, the Provider informed the Panel that the Registrar had confirmed the date that the disputed domain name was registered to the Respondent. This date was missing from the original Registrar verification. The Panel made a further Procedural Order allowing the parties until 19 August to comment on this new information and extending the decision date to 21 August 2026.<\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Veronica Bailey"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-21 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations for EDITPAD:<\/p>\n The Complainant has used the name EditPad since 2000 and holds the following domain name registrations that include that term:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n