WhatsApp Chat

Pixels.com Found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in MetalPoster.com Dispute

Published on November 10, 2025 | By OMWEB

Pixels.com Found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in MetalPoster.com Dispute

Pixels.com, LLC, the online art marketplace and print-on-demand platform, has been found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH) after filing an unsuccessful UDRP complaint over the domain MetalPoster.com.

The company, which owns MetalPosters.com (plural), claimed the singular version of the domain infringed on its rights. However, the panel determined that “metal poster” is a descriptive term — and not a trademark owned by the complainant.

Descriptive Term, Not a Trademark

Panelist Neil Anthony Brown KC noted that the complainant’s own website uses the phrase “metal posters” in a purely descriptive sense — with headlines such as “Shop for metal posters” and “Create your own metal posters.”

He explained in detail the standard required to establish a common law trademark, emphasizing that Pixels.com failed to meet it.

The respondent, meanwhile, was using the domain to sell metal posters, demonstrating legitimate rights and interests under the UDRP.

Panel’s Strong Rebuke

In declaring the case an abuse of process, Brown wrote:

“The requirement for a trademark is pivotal to the entire UDRP structure and the Complainant should have known that the plain words of the Policy required it to prove this element.
The Complainant did not do this and, more egregiously, did not try to do so... It must therefore have known or should have known that the case could not succeed and yet it brought the proceeding, necessarily involving the Respondent in time and cost. Such conduct has frequently been described as being in bad faith.”

Outcome

The panel found the complaint to be brought in bad faith, constituting an abuse of the administrative proceeding — a formal finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

  • Complainant represented by: McBrayer PLLC

  • Respondent represented by: Ruyuan IP Agency

OMWEB Insight

This case underscores a recurring issue in domain disputes: companies pursuing descriptive terms under trademark law risk not only losing the case but also facing an RDNH finding, which can damage credibility in future proceedings.

🔗 Share this blog: