About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Trustpilot A/S v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Alexander Pelmskix

Case No. D2021-2927

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Trustpilot A/S, Denmark, represented by Lewis Silkin LLP, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Alexander Pelmskix, Ukraine.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <trustpilot.name> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 6, 2021. On September 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 8, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 8, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 4, 2021. The Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 7, 2021 and on October 8, 2021 the Center received a communication from the Respondent’s email address, as revealed by the Registrar. The Respondent did not submit any substantive response.

The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on October 13, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a global consumer review website founded in Denmark in 2007, with offices in New York, Denver, London, Copenhagen, Vilnius, Berlin and Melbourne. On March 23, 2021, the Complainant was listed on the London Stock Exchange.

As of April 8, 2020, the Complainant’s core website, “www.trustpilot.com”, was ranked 433rd globally for Internet traffic and engagement and 28th in the United Kingdom. Consumers have posted over 120 million reviews on the Complainant’s website in relation to over 529,000 businesses.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for TRUSTPILOT, such as the following:

- the European Union Trademark Registration No. 9937624, for the word TRUSTPILOT, filed on July 7, 2011 and registered on December 8, 2011 for goods and services in IC 9, 35, 38, 42; and

- the Australian Trademark Registration No. 1650470, for the word TRUSTPILOT, filed on October 10, 2014 and registered on August 14, 2015 for goods and services in IC 9, 35, 38, 42.

The Complainant’s main website is available at “www.trustpilot.com”.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 11, 2021. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolveed to a website that displayed the Complainant’s TRUSTPILOT trademark and reproduced the layout of its genuine website presenting a very close reproduction of the Complainant’s business listing webpage, utilized by paying customers that wish to use the Complainant’s services in order to attract consumer reviews of their services. At the time of the decision the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.

An email communication from the email address of the underlying Respondent was sent to the Center on October 8, 2021 and it states as follows: “Hello. We saw your message for the first time, but we don’t understand why you are writing to us? Domain trustpilot.name does not belong to us and has nothing to do with us.”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to its distinctive and well-known trademark TRUSTPILOT, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith knowing the Complainant’s trademark and business. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As stated above, he submitted an informal email on October 8, 2021 stating that the disputed domain name does not belong to him.

6. Discussion and Findings

In view of the absence of a formal Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant holds rights in the TRUSTPILOT trademark.

The disputed domain name <trustpilot.name> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.name”) may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark TRUSTPILOT, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license, or authorization whatsoever to use the mark TRUSTPILOT, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Under the Policy, “where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.

There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under the disputed domain name.

This Panel is further convinced, based on the Complainant’s undisputed contentions, that the Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, especially, since the website to which the disputed domain name leads is an exact copy of the Complainant’s genuine customers webpage whose reviews are verified by the Complainant. Such use is definitely misleading the Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s business presented on the website under the disputed domain name is somehow verified by the Complainant.

Furthermore, and without prejudice to the above, the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, carries a high risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant uses the TRUSTPILOT mark since at least 2011 and such mark has gained reputation worldwide.

Previous UDRP panels have found the Complainant’s mark to have reputation. See for example Trustpilot A/S v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Joanna Kelly, WIPO Case No. D2020-1814; or Trustpilot A/S v. WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. / Trust Pilot Support, WIPO Case No. D2020-3421.

The disputed domain name was registered in 2021 and reproduces exactly the Complainant’s distinctive trademark.

From the above and the available record, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and targeting its trademark.

At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected Internet users to a website that copied the Complainant’s business listing webpage, used by the Complainant’s paying customers to attract customers rewies of their services. In doing so, the Respondent claims illegitemately that its website is endorsed by or affiliated with the Complainant when it is not the case, the aim being to legitimise the business presented on the website corresponding to the disputed domain name, and thus to obtain customers by misleading Internet users into believing that the business is verified by the Complainant.

Also, in order to increase such confusion of the Internet users, on the website under the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s trademark and layout of its genuine website are illicitely reproduced.

Given the circumstances in this case particularly because the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s famous trademark, the disputed domain name is connected to a webpage that reproduces the Complainant’s trademark, the layout of its business listing webpage, in this Panel’s view, the Respondent intended to attract Internet users accessing the website corresponding to the disputed domain name who may be confused and believe that the website is held, controlled by, or somehow affiliated or related to the Complainant, for its commercial gain.

Such circumstances are listed under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

Also, having in view the correspondence received by the Center on October 8, 2021, and detailed in section 4 above, this Panel infers that the Respondent provided false contact information in the WhoIs.

Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information (or an additional privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service as an indication of bad faith. See section 3.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a third party’s well-known trademark can, by itself, constitute a presumption of bad faith for the purpose of the Policy. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <trustpilot.name> be transferred to the Complainant.

Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: October 21, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/