BitcoinCashCity.com UDRP Complaint Decision & Summary

Summary of WIPO Domain Dispute Decision – Case No. D2022-3446

This case involved a dispute over two domain names: bitcoincashcity.com and bchpacific.com, both registered by Hayden Otto. The complainants, BCH Pacific Limited and Noel Lovisa, claimed that Otto registered these domains in bad faith and that the domains should be transferred to them. The case was heard under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) administered by WIPO.

The Dispute

The complainants argued that:

• Otto was an employee or agent acting on their instructions when he registered both domain names.
• The domain names corresponded to unregistered trademarks: “Bitcoin Cash City” (allegedly associated with Lovisa) and “BCH Pacific” (the name of the company).
• Otto’s continued control of the domains was improper and amounted to bad faith registration and use.

Otto responded by asserting:

• He independently created and popularized the “Bitcoin Cash City” brand as part of his personal and professional work as a cryptocurrency influencer.
• He registered bitcoincashcity.com and associated social media accounts before any employment or contractual obligation to Lovisa or his companies.
• He paid for and managed the domains in his personal capacity.
• The complainants were attempting to retroactively claim ownership of something they neither conceived nor contractually secured.

Panel Findings – Domain 1: BitcoinCashCity.com

❌ Complainants Failed to Prove Trademark Rights

The panel found that the complainants did not establish enforceable trademark rights to the term “Bitcoin Cash City.” The phrase was used in two ways — as a general geographic nickname for Townsville’s Bitcoin adoption scene, and as a brand identity. While both parties were involved in the 2019 Bitcoin Cash City Conference, the panel found the origin and ownership of the term to be disputed and unclear.

📌 Otto's Independent Role Recognized

Evidence showed that:

• Otto registered the domain before he was employed by any of the complainants’ companies.
• He coined or popularized the “Bitcoin Cash City” phrase in his role as a content creator.
• There were no instructions, agreements, or payments indicating that Otto was acting on behalf of Lovisa or BCH Pacific when registering the domain.
• Otto controlled the brand presence through the website, social media accounts, and videos he personally produced.

⚖️ Outcome for BitcoinCashCity.com

The panel ruled that the complainants failed to meet the first requirement of the UDRP (i.e., that they held valid trademark rights in “Bitcoin Cash City”). Accordingly, the complaint was denied for this domain.

Panel Findings – Domain 2: BCHPacific.com

✅ Complainants Succeeded

Unlike the previous domain, the panel found that BCH Pacific Limited had established unregistered trademark rights in its own name. Otto registered bchpacific.com after being employed by Code Valley, a company within Lovisa’s group.

The panel concluded that Otto held this domain on behalf of BCH Pacific, not in his personal capacity. His continued control and redirection of the domain to his own website after leaving the company was deemed improper.

⚖️ Outcome for BCHPacific.com

The panel ordered that bchpacific.com be transferred to BCH Pacific Limited.

No Reverse Domain Name Hijacking — But No Vindication for Lovisa

Otto requested a finding of reverse domain name hijacking (i.e., that the complainants abused the UDRP process to try to steal a domain). The panel declined to make this finding, but notably did not find Otto acted in bad faith, and acknowledged that many of the complainants’ claims were unproven or contested.

Key Takeaways

• Otto retained full rights to BitcoinCashCity.com. The panel found insufficient evidence to support the complainants’ claim to the name.
• The domain BCHPacific.com was transferred because Otto registered it during employment and had no independent claim.
• No finding of bad faith was made against Otto in relation to BitcoinCashCity.com.
• The complainants’ narrative was undermined by inconsistent filings and a lack of supporting documentation.