That, too, was my immediate thought. If Plaintiff was going to take a flyer on litigating in State court, their counsel might as well have considered UDRP and praying for a Complainant-friendly arbitrator.

It’s still geographically descriptive absent strong evidence of secondary meaning.

Complaints seeking names of the form (Location)+(Goods/Services) lose more often than not. They were probably specifically advised the UDRP was, and is, an unattractive option, and bet the defendant wouldn’t have the stomach for litigation over a $2500 name. That is typically why you see ACPA suits over weak marks as domain names, because its easier to wear someone down with a meritless claim in litigation.

(Complaint Denied)
San Benito Shutter, Inc. v Texas International Property Associates – NA NA

(Complaint Denied)
Kennedy Enterprises, Inc. v John Neetz, individually and trading as Bigtime Limited

(Complaint Denied)
Bevolo Gas & Electric Lights, Inc. v French Quarter Lanterns

(Complaint Denied)
668 North, LLC v. Junyun Bi

If the plaintiff couldn’t establish trademark rights, then you are correct that the UDRP would not be a good option. But if it could do so, the UDRP surely would have been cheaper than litigation (even if more expensive than a purchase). Interesting case, thanks for highlighting it!

Even a UDRP typically costs more than $2,500, so taking the deal was always the lowest-cost option. Given a weak trademark that the prior owner appeared to be abandoning, would the plaintiff have had any better chance of success with a UDRP?