“EVEN vs evenbiz.biz”: Why Timing Still Decides Domain Name Disputes

By Francesca A. Rospenio

Introduction

The recent URS Determination concerning evenbiz.biz offers a textbook example of how timing, evidence, and the nature of a term can determine the fate of a rights-protection action. The case, decided on 5 November 2025 by The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown KC, shows the limits of the URS and the continued importance of procedural discipline when enforcing digital brand rights.

1. The Background: A Trademark Arrives Too Late

Even Labs, a US software company, brought a URS Complaint seeking the rapid suspension of evenbiz.biz. Its EVEN mark was filed on 9 September 2025 and registered on 29 December 2024 (USPTO Reg. 793,305). The Respondent, Walter Kovacs of Latvia, had already registered the domain on 6 September 2025—three days earlier.

The Complainant alleged that the domain name invoked its trademark and diverted users. The Respondent countered that he registered lawfully, that “even” is a common English word, and that no evidence showed confusing similarity, bad faith, or lack of legitimate interest.

2. The URS Standard: ‘Clear and Convincing’ Evidence Only

As highlighted in the Determination (pp. 5–7), the URS is intentionally narrow. It is a fast-track mechanism designed for slam-dunk cases, where infringement is obvious and unambiguous. The Examiner stressed that the URS places the highest evidentiary burden among ICANN’s administrative procedures. If any element is not clearly met, the complaint must fail.

3. Why the Complaint Failed

a. No Confusing Similarity

While the Examiner accepted the validity of the EVEN trademark, he held that evenbiz.bizis neither identical nor confusingly similar. The mark appears only as a common word within the domain, followed by “biz” – a descriptive suffix not connected to the trademark. Ordinary users would read “even” in its standard English meaning (“equal”, “level”, “calm”), not as an indicator of origin.

b. Generic Word, Higher Burden

Because “even” is a common dictionary term, the Complainant needed evidence of strong brand recognition or secondary meaning. None was provided. As explained on pp. 7–8, the URS demands “material facts” showing association between the mark and the term, especially for generic words. This evidence was entirely absent.

c. No Bad Faith, No Pre-Existing Rights

Crucially, the domain was registered before the trademark application date. The Examiner held that the Complaint relied on “reactive” strategy after the Respondent’s registration, without evidence of earlier rights or bad-faith targeting. URS Procedure 8.4 therefore could not be satisfied.

d. Legitimate Interest Established

The Respondent demonstrated legitimate use plans, did not compete with the Complainant, and did not attempt to sell the domain. None of the bad-faith indicators of URS Procedure 5.9 applied.

4. Decision: Complaint Rejected

The Examiner rejected the Complaint and terminated the URS proceeding without prejudice, leaving Even Labs free to pursue a URS Appeal, UDRP, or court action. No abuse of process was found.

Conclusion: Evidence and Timing Still Rule the DNS

The evenbiz.biz case reiterates three essential lessons in online brand protection:

1. Register first, enforce later. Rights must pre-date domain registrations.

2. Generic words need enhanced evidence. Without clear user association, URS suspension is impossible.

3. Choose the right tool. The URS is unforgiving; UDRP or litigation may be better suited for nuanced disputes.

In an ecosystem where milliseconds matter, this Determination reminds brand owners that timing—and preparation—remain the ultimate gatekeepers of success in domain enforcement.

⸻

About the Author

Francesca A. Rospenio is the pen name of an international analyst specialising in online enforcement, trademark protection and alternative dispute resolution in digital environments. Her work focuses on URS/UDRP case law, platform accountability, and emerging patterns of abusive domain-name registrations across global TLD ecosystems.

With a background in intellectual-property governance and cross-border dispute resolution, she examines how online behavioural evidence and registrant-profiling techniques shape effective brand-protection strategies. Her insights are regularly used by rights holders, ADR bodies and practitioners seeking to understand the evolving dynamics of cybersquatting and domain-name abuse.