WIPO Panel Rules Against Fragrance Firm in Failed P&G Domain Hijacking Attempt

P&G registered both domains in 2004—years before Red Matter Holdings existed. For domain investors, the case is a useful reminder that trademark arguments do not erase registration chronology, and that a weak complaint can create risk for the party bringing it.

The timeline did most of the work

P&G registered the domains for an extension of its Febreze air-freshener line, involving disks designed to “play” different scents every thirty minutes. The product was discontinued in 2008, but the domains remained relevant to the dispute.

Red Matter Holdings argued that the domains were renewed in bad faith. The panelist, Scott Blackmer, rejected that reasoning. The key problem was straightforward: the domains predated both the complainant and its trademark applications by many years.

That sequence matters because a UDRP complaint generally needs to establish bad-faith registration as well as bad-faith use. The source material does not suggest that an old domain becomes immune from challenge simply because it was registered earlier. It does show why the complainant’s theory needed to address the registration date directly and convincingly.

Instead, according to the decision summary, the complaint acknowledged the timing problem but offered no authority for the assertion that the chronology did not prevent the claims. That left the panelist with little basis to find that P&G had registered the domains with Red Matter Holdings—or its later trademark rights—in mind.

The evidence problem was not limited to the domain dates

Red Matter Holdings also alleged bad faith because the respondent allegedly failed to respond to communications before the UDRP complaints were filed. P&G denied that the communications occurred, and the complainant provided no proof of them.

That is a familiar portfolio lesson: an assertion about outreach is not the same as a documented record. If you are negotiating for a domain, preserve the emails, dates, delivery records, and responses. If you own the domain, preserve the same material from your side. A dispute can turn on mundane documentation rather than on the quality of the brand story.

The panelist also noted that the complainant represented itself. The company’s president acted as representative and was not listed as a member of the bar in Nevada or New York. Self-representation was not, by itself, the reason for the ruling. But the decision points to a more practical issue: the relevant UDRP framework and timing principles were available, yet the complaint did not substantiate its position on them.

For investors, that is the important distinction. A domain dispute is not won by sounding certain. The filing has to connect the evidence to the required elements of the claim.

What investors should check before a sale or defense

The first file I would build for any contested domain is a clean chronology:

• registration and transfer records;
• archived evidence of how the domain was used;
• trademark application and registration dates for the opposing party;
• communications connected to the domain;
• evidence showing when the current owner acquired or renewed it.

In the ScentStories.com and ScentStory.com dispute, the 2004 registration date was central because it came before the complainant existed. That does not settle every domain case, but it should immediately shape the risk assessment and the response strategy.

I would also separate three questions that are often blurred together: whether a term is similar to a trademark, whether the owner has legitimate interests, and whether the domain was registered and used in bad faith. A strong-looking brand match may create inbound inquiries or end-user friction, but it is not automatically proof of bad-faith registration.

The broader takeaway is not that old domains are untouchable. It is that ownership history, registration timing, and contemporaneous records have real defensive value. Before spending money on a dispute—or assuming that a trademark claim will force a transfer—check the dates first. In this case, the dates were not background detail. They were the case.