Aghria filed two UDRP complaints on September 12, 2026, against domains that pre-dated his trademark filings. The panel found the complaints lacked evidence of secondary meaning and that the respondents had registered the domains before the trademarks were filed, leading to dismissal of both cases.
Case 1: sattamatkajico.com
The first complaint targeted sattamatkajico.com, a domain linked to a number-based betting game. The panel noted that the domain was registered before Aghria filed any related trademarks, making the claim untenable.
Case 2: sattamatka.email and sattamatka.sale
The second complaint covered sattamatka.email and sattamatka.sale, also associated with gambling. Panelist Harini Narayanswamy observed that the complainant knew the respondents’ registrations preceded the trademark filings and that the domain names comprised common words. The panel described the complaints as abuse of the administrative proceeding.
The respondent’s name was redacted from the decision because of allegations of violating gambling laws. Aghria reportedly spent $1,500 per case, with no further repercussions beyond potential pushback on his trademarks. The outcome underscores the importance of verifying registration dates and trademark status before filing UDRP disputes.
What to Watch
- Verify that a domain was not registered before your trademark filing.
- Ensure your complaint demonstrates secondary meaning or other UDRP grounds.
- Be aware that filing multiple disputes simultaneously can increase costs without reducing risk.
Source: Domainnamewire