WIPO D2025-3791 · decided 5 November 2025
SAGE Development Authority v. Peter Little Horn
The parties
- Complainant
- SAGE Development Authority
- Respondent
- Peter Little Horn
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found sagesrst.org confusingly similar to SAGE, in which the Complainant held common law trademark rights through use since 2020, because the whole SAGE mark is recognisable in it. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest, because the Respondent no longer worked for SAGE, had no permission to keep the domain name and was holding it hostage. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith use but not bad faith registration, because SAGE's own evidence implied it authorised the Respondent to register sagesrst.org in his own name in 2022. The Complaint failed on this element. |
Why does SAGE matter for a complaint today?
Peter Little Horn was Communications Director of SAGE Development Authority, the energy corporation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. On December 6, 2022, he registered sagesrst.org in his own name and paid with his own credit card, and SAGE reimbursed him. He resigned on July 18, 2024. Three days later he emailed SAGE's Chief Executive Officer. He demanded back pay and threatened to remove the website. The panel, David H. Bernstein, held that this was bad faith use. But the UDRP requires bad faith at registration too, and SAGE's own Complaint said he registered the domain name under authority SAGE gave him. Section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 notes that "retroactive" bad faith registration, explored in cases from 2009 and 2010, has not been followed since. The panel denied the Complaint on November 5, 2025, and pointed SAGE to its claim in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court. The fix is simple. Register every company domain name in the company's name, with a company email address, and keep a record of who holds the login. A domain name an employee registers in his own name with your permission may have to be recovered in court, not under the UDRP.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 2.11: At what point in time of respondent conduct do panels assess claimed rights or legitimate interests?
- Section 3.2.1: What circumstances further inform panel consideration of registration in bad faith?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, David H. Bernstein, decided the case on 5 November 2025.
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.