Produce Company Planet Harvest Found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

A UDRP panelist has ruled that produce company Planet Harvest LLC attempted to reverse hijack the domain name planetharvest.com, which was registered 24 years before the company held any trademark rights. The decision was issued June 26, 2026.

Planet Harvest, which operates from the hyphenated domain planet-harvest.com, offered the registrant $2,201 for the domain. When the registrant countered at $100,000, the company filed a UDRP complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

Domain registration predates trademark by decades

Vance More registered planetharvest.com in 1999 and later transferred it to his company MV3 Inc. Planet Harvest did not begin using the name until 2023, making it impossible for the registrant to have targeted a mark that did not exist. Panelist Nicholas J.T. Smith cited the registration date as a primary reason for the reverse domain name hijacking finding.

• The domain was registered in 1999, 24 years before Planet Harvest's first use of the name.
• Planet Harvest first attempted to buy the domain and turned to UDRP only after rejecting the registrant's price.
• The complainant advanced discredited legal theories, including that a domain renewal constitutes a re-registration.
• Rachel Saunders of Saturday Legal LLC represented Planet Harvest. The respondent was self-represented.

Implications for UDRP abuse

This case fits a pattern known as a Plan B reverse domain name hijacking, where a complainant files a UDRP after failing to acquire a domain through negotiation. The panelist found the complaint was brought in bad faith, noting the complainant was represented by counsel yet still pursued arguments that contradicted established UDRP precedent.

The decision reinforces that domain registrations predating a complainant's trademark rights are nearly impossible to challenge under the UDRP. It also serves as a warning to companies that attempt to use the policy as a bargaining tool after purchase negotiations fail. The respondent retains ownership of planetharvest.com.