Microsoft loses UDRP bid for Dataverse.com despite trademark claim

Panel says record did not show respondent targeted Microsoft’s DATAVERSE mark

Microsoft’s attempt to take control of Dataverse.com has hit a wall. In a recent WIPO decision, the tech giant failed to convince a three-member panel that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The ruling underscores a recurring reality in domain disputes: trademark ownership alone does not guarantee victory under the UDRP.

Microsoft Dataverse is the company’s cloud-based data platform and relational database engine for Power Platform and Dynamics 365. Formerly called Common Data Service, the product serves as the underlying data layer for applications built across Microsoft 365, Azure, and third-party integrations. Microsoft argued that the Dataverse.com domain targeted its DATAVERSE mark, which the company says it has used since 2020.

Owning the trademark wasn’t enough: Microsoft loses Dataverse.com UDRP fight

The panel agreed on one key point. Dataverse.com is identical to Microsoft’s mark. That cleared the first hurdle for the company. But UDRP cases often hinge on a tougher question: whether the domain owner registered the name with the intent to exploit the trademark holder.

On that front, Microsoft came up short.

The respondent, Harold John, told the panel he acquired the domain in May 2021 for an independent data and AI consulting business he had been considering for years. He described “dataverse” as a descriptive blend of “data” and “universe,” a phrase already circulating in academic and technical communities. His argument pointed to Harvard University’s Dataverse project and other third-party uses as evidence that the term carried a broader industry meaning.

The panel found that explanation credible.

At the time of the acquisition, the record did not clearly show Microsoft’s DATAVERSE product had achieved strong market recognition. The panel wrote that the evidence failed to establish that the respondent registered the domain with Microsoft’s mark in mind or with the intent to target the company’s goodwill.

Microsoft leaned heavily on the state of the website associated with the domain, describing it as thin and underdeveloped. The panel was not persuaded. A basic or evolving consultancy site, on its own, does not prove cybersquatting. The decision notes there was no sign of impersonation, pay-per-click abuse, or other conduct commonly associated with bad faith.

“In sum, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s case on bad faith rests largely on inference and speculation rather than on evidence of targeting at the time of registration,” the decision states.

That finding proved decisive. Under the UDRP, complainants must show both registration and use in bad faith. Failing either element ends the case.

The panel stopped short of declaring reverse domain name hijacking. It said Microsoft’s complaint fell within the bounds of a legitimate attempt to protect asserted trademark rights, given the competing claims over the meaning and use of “dataverse.”

For founders and domain owners, the outcome carries a clear signal. Strong trademark portfolios carry weight, but they do not override the need to prove targeting and bad faith. Terms that double as descriptive or widely used industry language often create a higher bar for complainants.

The case is Microsoft Corporation v. Harold John, Case No. D2025-4870. The complaint was denied on February 13, 2026.

The decision was first highlighted by DomainGang, a publication that tracks domain industry news and trends.

Below is a PDF version of the WIPO ruling.