WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0")
© 2017 World Intellectual Property Organization
All Rights Reserved
Resulting from WIPO's care for effective remedies under a sustainable UDRP, this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview reflects, and assists the predictability of, UDRP decisions by panels appointed in WIPO cases.
The World Wide Web in 2014 celebrated its 25th anniversary. Its ubiquity both as a commercial medium – facilitating trillions of dollars in trade annually – and as a means of disseminating information globally is self-evident. Sometimes heralded as one of mankind's greatest innovations, for all of its positive attributes, even looking back to its early days the Internet has also provided a platform for a range of bad-faith practices across territorial borders including Intellectual Property infringement.
To help maintain the overall integrity of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS), at the request of the United States Government supported by all Member States, in 1999 following an extensive process of international consultations, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) created the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to address cross-border trademark-abusive domain name registrations, a practice widely known as cybersquatting. Adopted by ICANN as a much needed standardized alternative to multi-jurisdictional court litigation, the UDRP provides an efficient remedy for brand owners and predictability for domainers, fosters consumer protection for end users, and acts as a safe harbor for DNS registration authorities. As a globally recognized best-practice, it is also the basis for a significant number of country code top-level domain (ccTLD) dispute resolution policies.
Since creating the blueprint for the UDRP, WIPO as of early 2017 has processed over 37,000 UDRP-based cases decided by nearly 500 experts covering some 65 nationalities and 21 languages, and involving parties from over 175 countries.
As the DNS expands, including as an engine for economic growth, and further to ICANN's approval of scores of new Top Level Domains, the potential for cybersquatting and resulting consumer harm persists – making WIPO's not-for-profit institutional investment in continued UDRP predictability, for all DNS stakeholders, all the more important.
In furtherance of transparency and accessibility, this WIPO investment includes a keyword-searchable Legal Index of WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions, a full-text search facility on all posted decisions, real-time WIPO case statistics, UDRP training Workshops, WIPO Panelists Meetings, and this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview. Beyond these resources, WIPO has successfully initiated paperless e-filing, case language, and settlement practices.
Understanding the relationship between UDRP operations and policy, WIPO notes that the fabric of UDRP jurisprudence, carefully woven over many years, can easily be torn apart. It is hoped that as ICANN embarks on a review of the UDRP, resources such as this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 assist responsible decision-making that works for all DNS stakeholders.
Under the UDRP, decision-making authority rests exclusively with the appointed external panels, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. While the UDRP does not operate on a strict doctrine of binding precedent, it is important for the overall credibility of the UDRP system that filing parties can reasonably anticipate the result of their case. Often noting the existence of similar facts and circumstances or identifying distinguishing factors, WIPO panels strive for consistency with prior decisions. In so doing, WIPO panels seek to ensure that the UDRP operates in a fair and predictable manner for all stakeholders while also retaining sufficient flexibility to address evolving Internet and domain name practices.
With this collective aim, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has produced the present WIPO Jurisprudential Overview version 3.0, to summarize consensus panel views on a range of common and important substantive and procedural issues. Following a review of thousands of WIPO panel decisions issued since WIPO Overview 2.0, this edition has been updated to now include express references to almost 1,000 representative decisions (formerly 380) from over 265 (formerly 180) WIPO panelists. The number of cases managed by the WIPO Center has nearly doubled since its publication of WIPO Overview 2.0; as a result, the number of issues covered in this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 has significantly increased to reflect a range of incremental DNS and UDRP case evolutions.
While the overall purpose of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview is to assist in predictability, it is important to point out that – as with any legal system – differences of opinion may exist on some specific issues and in certain outlier cases; all the more so as the UDRP operates across fact patterns and jurisdictions. Furthermore, neither this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview nor prior UDRP decisions are strictly binding on panelists, who will consider the particular facts and circumstances of each individual proceeding in a manner they consider fair. At the same time, panel findings tend to fall within the views summarized in this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0. Finally, parties should note that the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview cannot serve as a substitution for each party's obligation to argue and establish their particular case under the UDRP, and it remains the responsibility of each party to make its own independent assessment of prior decisions relevant to its case.
The consensus views laid out in this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 have been welcomed by UDRP Panelists inter alia at WIPO's Panelists Meetings convened in Geneva through 2016. The contents reflect the Meetings' constructive dialogue, as well as substantial contribution and informal review from a number of the most experienced WIPO panelists. As WIPO UDRP jurisprudence matures, the WIPO Center, in consultation with its panelists, will on appropriate occasions consider undertaking further updates in whole or in part to this WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0. (The original edition and WIPO Overview 2.0 will continue to be accessible on the WIPO Center's website for reference.)
QUESTIONS
1. First UDRP Element
2. Second UDRP Element
3. Third UDRP Element
4. Procedural Questions
1. First UDRP Element
1.1 What type of trademark rights are encompassed by the expression "trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights" in UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i)?
1.2 Do registered trademarks automatically confer standing to file a UDRP case?
1.3 What does a complainant need to show to successfully assert unregistered or common law trademark rights?
1.4 Does a trademark owner's affiliate or licensee have standing to file a UDRP complaint?
1.5 Can a complainant show UDRP-relevant rights in a personal name?
1.6 Can a complainant's rights in a geographical term provide standing to file a UDRP complaint?
1.7 What is the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element?
1.8 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
1.9 Is a domain name consisting of a misspelling of the complainant's trademark (i.e., typosquatting) confusingly similar to the complainant's mark?
1.10 How are trademark registrations with design elements or disclaimed text treated in assessing identity or confusing similarity?
1.11 Is the Top Level Domain relevant in determining identity or confusing similarity?
1.12 Is a domain name consisting of the complainant's mark plus a third-party trademark confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark?
1.13 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term ("sucks cases") confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
1.14 Is a domain name that consists or is comprised of a translation or transliteration of a trademark identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
1.15 Is the content of the website associated with a domain name relevant in determining identity or confusing similarity?
2. Second UDRP Element
2.1 How do panels assess whether a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name?
2.2 What qualifies as prior use, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services?
2.3 How would a respondent show that it is commonly known by the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name?
2.4 How does the UDRP account for legitimate fair use of domain names?
2.5 What are some core factors UDRP panels look at in assessing fair use?
2.6 Does a criticism site support respondent rights or legitimate interests?
2.7 Does a fan site support respondent rights or legitimate interests in a domain name?
2.8 How do panels assess claims of nominative (fair) use by resellers or distributors?
2.9 Do "parked" pages comprising pay-per-click links support respondent rights or legitimate interests?
2.10 Does a respondent have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name comprised of a dictionary word/phrase or acronym?
2.11 At what point in time of respondent conduct do panels assess claimed rights or legitimate interests?
2.12 Does a respondent trademark corresponding to a domain name automatically generate rights or legitimate interests?
2.13 How do panels treat complainant claims of illegal (e.g., counterfeit) activity in relation to potential respondent rights or legitimate interests?
2.14 Is the TLD under which a domain name is registered relevant in assessing respondent rights or legitimate interests?
2.15 What is the relation between the 2nd and 3rd UDRP elements?
3. Third UDRP Element
3.1 How does a complainant prove a respondent's bad faith?
3.2 What circumstances further inform panel consideration of registration in bad faith?
3.3 Can the "passive holding" or non-use of a domain name support a finding of bad faith?
3.4 Can the use of a domain name for purposes other than hosting trademark-abusive content constitute bad faith?
3.5 Can third-party generated material "automatically" appearing on the website associated with a domain name form a basis for finding bad faith?
3.6 How does a registrant's use of a privacy or proxy service impact a panel's assessment of bad faith?
3.7 How does a disclaimer on the webpage to which a disputed domain name resolves impact a panel's assessment of bad faith?
3.8 Can bad faith be found where a domain name was registered before the complainant acquired trademark rights?
3.9 Can the respondent's renewal of its domain name registration support a finding of (registration in) bad faith?
3.10 Will panels consider statements made in settlement discussions?
3.11 Can the use of "robots.txt" or similar mechanisms to prevent website content being accessed in an online archive impact a panel's assessment of bad faith?
3.12 Can tarnishment form a basis for finding bad faith?
4. Procedural Questions
4.1 What deference is owed to past UDRP decisions dealing with similar factual matters or legal issues?
4.2 What is the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases?
4.3 Does a respondent's default/failure to respond to the complainant's contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding?
4.4 How is respondent identity assessed in a case involving a privacy or proxy registration service?
4.5 How is the (working) language of a UDRP proceeding determined?
4.6 In what circumstances would a panel accept a party's unsolicited supplemental filing?
4.7 Under what circumstances would a UDRP panel issue a Procedural Order?
4.8 May a panel perform independent research in assessing the case merits?
4.9 Can UDRP proceedings be suspended for purposes of settlement?
4.10 How do panels handle cases involving a respondent's informal or unilateral consent for the transfer of the domain name to the complainant outside the "standard settlement process" described above?
4.11 How do panels address consolidation scenarios?
4.12 Under what circumstances may additional domain names be added to a filed complaint/ongoing proceeding?
4.13 How do panels address domain names involving the mark of a third party trademark owner not joined in the complaint?
4.14 What is the relationship between the UDRP and court proceedings?
4.15 To what extent is national law relevant to panel assessment of the second and third UDRP elements (rights or legitimate interests, and bad faith)?
4.16 In what circumstances will panels issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)?
4.17 Does "delay" in bringing a complaint bar a complainant from filing a case under the UDRP?
4.18 Under what circumstances would a refiled case be accepted?
4.19 Can a registry or registrar be liable under the UDRP?
4.20 How does the expiration or deletion of a domain name subject to a UDRP proceeding affect the proceeding?
4.21 What is the Center's role, if any, in decision implementation?
4.22 What is the relation of the UDRP to the URS?
1. First UDRP Element
1.1 What type of trademark rights are encompassed by the expression "trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights" in UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i)?
1.1.1 The term "trademark or service mark" as used in UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i) encompasses both registered and unregistered (sometimes referred to as common law) marks.
1.1.2 Noting in particular the global nature of the Internet and Domain Name System, the jurisdiction(s) where the trademark is valid is not considered relevant to panel assessment under the first element.
Also, the goods and/or services for which the mark is registered or used in commerce, the filing/priority date, date of registration, and date of claimed first use, are not considered relevant to the first element test. These factors may however bear on a panel's further substantive determination under the second and third elements.
1.1.3 While the UDRP makes no specific reference to the date on which the holder of the trademark or service mark acquired its rights, such rights must be in existence at the time the complaint is filed.
The fact that a domain name may have been registered before a complainant has acquired trademark rights does not by itself preclude a complainant's standing to file a UDRP case, nor a panel's finding of identity or confusing similarity under the first element.
Where a domain name has been registered before a complainant has acquired trademark rights, only in exceptional cases would a complainant be able to prove a respondent's bad faith.
1.1.4 A pending trademark application would not by itself establish trademark rights within the meaning of UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i).
[See sections 3.1, 3.2.1, and 3.8 generally.]
Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. Nauga Network Services, WIPO Case No. D2000-0503, <nauga.net>et al., Transfer
Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree, WIPO Case No. D2002-0358, <thaigem.net>, Transfer
Fine Tubes Limited v. Tobias Kirch, J. & J. Ethen, Ethen Rohre GmbH, WIPO Case No. D2012-2211, <fine-tubes.com>, Denied
Tesar Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Boris Santana, WIPO Case No. D2014-0960, <tesarindustrial.com>, Transfer
Generate4 Schools, LLC v. Privacyguardian.org / MiCamp Merchant Services, WIPO Case No. D2014-1009, <generate4u.org>, Transfer
Money Tree Software, Ltd. v. Javier Martinez, Money Tree Software, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2014-1078, <moneytreesoftware.com>, Transfer
Lindeva Living Trust, Kim W. Lu Trustee v. Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant / 510 Pacific Ave, Pacific Venice, WIPO Case No. D2015-1105, <510pacificave.com>, Denied
Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Relish Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2007-1629, <xenicalla.com>, Transfer
Drugstore.com, Inc. v. Nurhul Chee / Robert Murry, WIPO Case No. D2008-0230, <drugstoretm.com>, Denied with Dissenting Opinion
Office Holdings Limited v. Hocu To d.o.o. and Office Shoes d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2009-1277, <officeshoesonline.com>, Denied
RapidShare AG and Christian Schmid v. majeed randi, WIPO Case No. D2010-1089, <rapidpiracy.com>, Transfer
Reckon Limited v. Multitech s.r.l., WIPO Case No. D2013-1017, <reckon.com>, Denied
CeltonManx Limited v. Pham Dinh Nhut, WIPO Case No. D2014-0109, <sbobet.net>, Transfer
Etechaces Marketing and Consulting Private Limited v. Bhargav Chokshi / IR Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-0563, <onlinepolicybazaar.com>, Transfer
Tozzini, Freire, Teixeira e Silva Advogados v. Ernesto Siempro, WIPO Case No. D2015-1002, <tozzini-freire.com>, Transfer
Guinness World Records Limited v. Solution Studio, WIPO Case No. D2016-0186, <guinnessworldrecords.xyz>, Transfer
Assurances Premium SARL v. Whois Privacy Shield Services / Daisuke Yamaguchi, WIPO Case No. D2016-1425, <mascotte-assurances.com>, Transfer
Digital Vision, Ltd. v. Advanced Chemill Systems, WIPO Case No. D2001-0827, <digitalvision.com>, Denied
Madrid 2012, S.A. v. Scott Martin-MadridMan Websites, WIPO Case No. D2003-0598, <2m12.com>et al., Transfer
Stoneygate 48 Limited and Wayne Mark Rooney v. Huw Marshall, WIPO Case No. D2006-0916, <waynerooney.com>, Transfer
Esquire Innovations, Inc. v. Iscrub.com c/o Whois Identity Shield; and Vertical Axis, Inc, Domain Adminstrator, WIPO Case No. D2007-0856, <iscrub.com>, Transfer
The State of Tennessee, USA v. (DOMAIN NAME 4 SALE) DOMAIN-NAME-4-SALE eMAIL baricci@attglobal.net, WIPO Case No. D2008-0640, <coverkids.com>, Denied
Reckitt Benckiser Plc v. Eunsook Wi, WIPO Case No. D2009-0239, <rb.net>, Denied
QIQ Communications Pty Ltd v. Netico, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1024, <qiq.com>, Denied
Naviswiss AG v. inLink GmbH, WIPO Case No. D2016-2339, <naviswiss.com>, Denied
Bayer AG v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Syed Hussain, IBN7 Media Group, WIPO Case No. D2016-2354, <bayermonsanto.com>, Transfer
MAS S.A.S. v. Joseph Kattampally, WIPO Case No. D2016-2408, <maaji.com>, Denied
Greenvelope, LLC v. Virtual Services Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2017-0006, <greenenvelope.com>, Denied
Lion Country Supply, Inc. v. J. Katz, WIPO Case No. D2003-0106, <lioncountrysupply.com>, Transfer
PC Mall, Inc. v. Pygmy Computer Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0437,
<mobile-mall.com>et al., Denied
Displays Depot, Inc. v. GNO, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-0445, <displaydepot.com>, Denied
Advance News Service Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc. / Religionnewsservice.com, WIPO Case No. D2008-1475, <religionnewsservice.com>, Denied
Mario Rodriguez BBS Technologies, lnc. v. Guangzhou Tianji Technology Co. Ltd Pengfei Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2009-0477, <shadygrovefertilitycenter.com>et al., Denied
537397 Ontario Inc. operating as Tech Sales Co. v. EXAIR Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2009-0567, <nexflow.com>et al., Transfer
No Zebra Network Ltda v.Baixaki.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-1071, <baixaki.com>, Transfer
Prom Night Events v. YourFormal Pty Ltd / Your Formal Australia Pty Ltd, Samir Kapoor, WIPO Case No. D2011-1707, <adelaidepromnight.com> et al., Denied
Kemosabe Entertainment, LLC v. Mike Nazzaro, WIPO Case No. D2012-1893, <kemosaberecords.com>, Denied
Mark C. Spicher v. Frogi Design, s.r.o. / The Artwork Factory, s.r.o., WIPO Case No. D2015-0606, <the-artwork-factory.com>, Denied
Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / David Wieland, iEstates.com, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-1349, <unmail.com>, Denied
1.2 Do registered trademarks automatically confer standing to file a UDRP case?
1.2.1 Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.
1.2.2 Complainants relying on trademark registrations listed solely on the USPTO Supplemental Register are expected to show secondary meaning in order to establish trademark rights under the Policy because under US law a supplemental registration does not by itself provide evidence of distinctiveness to support trademark rights. Even where such standing is established, panels may scrutinize the degree of deference owed to such marks in assessing the second and third elements.
When considering UDRP standing, panels tend to carefully review certain types of automatic/unexamined registered trademarks such as US state registrations (as opposed to US federal registrations); these are not accorded the same deference and may not on their own satisfy the UDRP's "rights in a mark" standing test.
1.2.3 Subject to considerations addressed in section 1.10 below, trademark registrations with design elements or disclaimed terms typically would not affect panel assessment of standing or identity/confusing similarity under the UDRP but may be relevant to panel assessment of the second and third elements. However, if the similar elements of the domain name are made up exclusively of disclaimed terms, trademark rights under the Policy may not be found unless the complainant can show sufficient secondary meaning in the disclaimed terms.
[See also section 1.10.]
Integrated Print Solutions, Inc. v. Kelly Davidson and Integrated Print Solutions, WIPO Case No. D2013-0219, <integratedprintsolutions.com>, Denied
Scentco, Inc., Christopher Cote v. Domain Discreet Privacy Service / Vincent Poloma Pet Nutritional Research, WIPO Case No. D2014-0401, <smanimals.com>, Denied
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657, <voguepromdresses.com>, Transfer
Horten Advokatpartnerselskab v. Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited / Krutikov Valeriy Nikolaevich, WIPO Case No. D2016-0205, <horten-canada.com>, Transfer
Starpixel Marketing LLC dba Vape Magazine v. Geoffrey Stonham, WIPO Case No. D2016-0773, <vapemagazine.com>, Denied
Tinynova LLC v. Chris Edwards, Orion Interactive, WIPO Case No. D2016-0804, <backit.com>, Denied
VKR Holding A/S v. Li Pinglong, WIPO Case No. D2016-2269, <wxvelux.com>, Transfer
Teresa Christie, d/b/a The Mackinac Island Florist v. James Porcaro, d/b/a Weber's Mackinac Island Florist, WIPO Case No. D2001-0653, <mackinacislandflorist.com> et al., Transfer
The New England Vein & Laser Center, P.C. v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-1318, <newenglandveincenter.com>, Transfer
Paul McMann v. J McEachern, WIPO Case No. D2007-1597, <paulmcmann.com>, and <paulmcmannsucks.com>, Denied
Bouncing Bear Botanicals, Inc. v. International Domain Name and Protection, LLC., WIPO Case No. D2011-1243, <k2incenseblend.com> et al., Denied
Tarheel Take-Out, LLC v. Versimedia, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-1668, <takeout.com>, Denied
South Fork Hardware, Inc., DBA TireChain.com v. Vulcan Sales, Inc., DBA Vulcan Tire Sales, WIPO Case No. D2013-0199, <tirechian.com> and <tirechians.com>, Denied
Win Kelly Chevrolet L.L.C. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Tech Domain Services Private Limited, WIPO Case No. D2013-2018, <winnkelly.com>, Transfer
Jewelry Candles, LLC v. Micah Buse of WebsiteVM - Domain Management, Louisville Marketing, Inc., d/b/a Jewelry In Candles, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2014-2203, <jewelryincandles.com>, Denied
Mark C. Spicher v. Frogi Design, s.r.o. / The Artwork Factory, s.r.o., WIPO Case No. D2015-0606, <the-artwork-factory.com>, Denied
Jobs on the Net Limited, Andrew Middleton v. International New Media Limited, WIPO Case No. D2011-1531, <nannyjob.com>, Denied with Dissenting Opinion
Marco Aurich v. Johannes Kuehrer, World4You Webservice, WIPO Case No. D2012-1147, <domainhoster.info>, Denied
Çelik Motor Ticaret A.S. v. ONUNO L.L.C, WIPO Case No. D2015-0369, <çelikmotorfilo.com> [xn--elikmotorfilo-hgb.com>], Transfer
Major Wire Industries Limited v. DigitalOne AG, WIPO Case No. D2015-0284, <major.com>, Denied
Career Group, Inc. v. The Career Group Ltd / Deborah Simonds, WIPO Case No. D2014-1296, <careergroup.com>, Denied
Liberty Utilities (America) Co. v. Christopher Ohrstrom, WIPO Case No. D2016-2062, <libertyenergytrust.com>, Denied
Das Telefonbuch Zeichen-GbR v. Yajun Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2016-2228, <dastelefonbuch.top>, Transfer
1.3 What does a complainant need to show to successfully assert unregistered or common law trademark rights?
To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services.
Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys.
(Particularly with regard to brands acquiring relatively rapid recognition due to a significant Internet presence, panels have also been considering factors such as the type and scope of market activities and the nature of the complainant's goods and/or services.)
Specific evidence supporting assertions of acquired distinctiveness should be included in the complaint; conclusory allegations of unregistered or common law rights, even if undisputed in the particular UDRP case, would not normally suffice to show secondary meaning. In cases involving unregistered or common law marks that are comprised solely of descriptive terms which are not inherently distinctive, there is a greater onus on the complainant to present evidence of acquired distinctiveness/secondary meaning.
As noted in section 1.1.2, for a number of reasons, including the global nature of the Internet and Domain Name System, the fact that secondary meaning may only exist in a particular geographical area or market niche does not preclude the complainant from establishing trademark rights (and as a result, standing) under the UDRP.
Also noting the availability of trademark-like protection under certain national legal doctrines (e.g., unfair competition or passing-off) and considerations of parity, where acquired distinctiveness/secondary meaning is demonstrated in a particular UDRP case, unregistered rights have been found to support standing to proceed with a UDRP case including where the complainant is based in a civil law jurisdiction.
The fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting the complainant's mark (e.g., based on the manner in which the related website is used) may support the complainant's assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier.
Even where a panel finds that a complainant has UDRP standing based on unregistered or common law trademark rights, the strength of the complainant's mark may be considered relevant in evaluating the second and third elements.
[See also sections 3.2 and 3.8 generally.]
Uitgeverij Crux v. W. Frederic Isler, WIPO Case No. D2000-0575, <crux.net>, Transfer
Skattedirektoratet v. Eivind Nag, WIPO Case No. D2000-1314, <skatteetaten.com>, Transfer
Amsec Enterprises, L.C. v. Sharon McCall, WIPO Case No. D2001-0083, <backgroundfacts.com>, Denied
Australian Trade Commission v. Matthew Reader, WIPO Case No. D2002-0786, <austrade.com>, Transfer
Imperial College v. Christophe Dessimoz, WIPO Case No. D2004-0322, <idealeague.com>et al., Transfer
Julie & Jason, Inc. d/b/a The Mah Jongg Maven v. Faye Scher d/b/a Where the Winds Blow, WIPO Case No. D2005-0073, <themahjonggmaven.com>, Transfer
Alpine Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Walter Alvarez, WIPO Case No. D2006-1392, <realspanking.com>, Denied
Fairview Commercial Lending, Inc. v. Aleksandra Pesalj, WIPO Case No. D2007-0123, <fairviewlending.org>, Transfer
The Carphone Warehouse Limited and The Phone House B.V. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2008-0483, <thecarephonewarehouse.com>et al., Transfer, Denied in Part
Continental Casualty Company v. Andrew Krause / Domains by Proxy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2008-0672, <continentalcasualty.com>, Denied
Thomas Pick aka Pick Inc. v. EUROPREMIUM LTD, Elaine Maria Gross, WIPO Case No. D2008-1010, <bs.com>, Denied
Mancini's Sleepworld v. LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, WIPO Case No. D2008-1036,<mancinissleepworld.com>, Denied
La Mafafa, Inc. dba Cultura Profética v. Domains Real Estate, WIPO Case No. D2009-0534, <culturaprofetica.com>, Transfer
S.N.C. Jesta Fontainebleau v. Po Ser, WIPO Case No. D2009-1394, <palaisstephany.com>, Transfer
Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. FinanceMalta v. Adriano Cefai, WIPO Case No. D2011-1246, <financemalta.com>, Transfer
Michael Sweep v. Douglas Berry, WIPO Case No. D2012-0651, <brisbaneglass.com>, Denied
Robin Hanger v. RPM Truck & Trailer Sales - Samantha Holcomb, WIPO Case No. D2013-1092, <bestpricedtrailer.com>, Denied
Roper Industries, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2014-1828, <ropenind.com>, Transfer
Liviu Tudor v. Andra Matei, WIPO Case No. D2014-1903, <liviu-tudor.com>, Denied
Roadcam, Inc. v. Jon Smejkal, WIPO Case No. D2014-1980, <dashcamlab.com> et al., Denied
K-Tek Computers, Inc., d/b/a Computer Refurb v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / mail: and Fred Serhal, WIPO Case No. D2015-0225, <computerrefurb.com>, Denied
Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / David Wieland, iEstates.com, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-1349, <unmail.com>, Denied
Together Networks Holdings Limited v. Admin Admin / MyPengo Mobile B.V., WIPO Case No. D2016-1350, <cheekydevil.com>, Denied
1.4 Does a trademark owner's affiliate or licensee have standing to file a UDRP complaint?
1.4.1 A trademark owner's affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint.
While panels have been prepared to infer the existence of authorization to file a UDRP case based on the facts and circumstances described in the complaint, they may expect parties to provide relevant evidence of authorization to file a UDRP complaint.
In this respect, absent clear authorization from the trademark owner, a non-exclusive trademark licensee would typically not have standing to file a UDRP complaint.
1.4.2 Where multiple related parties have rights in the relevant mark on which a UDRP complaint is based, a UDRP complaint may be brought by any one party, on behalf of the other interested parties; in such case, the complainant(s) may wish to specify to which of such named interested parties any transfer decision should be directed.
[See also section 4.11.1.]
1.4.1 Relevant decisions
Telcel, C.A. v. jerm and Jhonattan Ramírez, WIPO Case No. D2002-0309, <telcelbellsouth.com>, Transfer
Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. v. J. Alexis Productions, WIPO Case No. D2003-0624, <lexusmichaels.com>, Denied
Grupo Televisa, S.A., Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Estrategia Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Videoserpel, Ltd. v. Party Night Inc., a/k/a Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2003-0796, <televisadeporte.com>, Transfer
Spherion Corporation v. Peter Carrington, d/b/a Party Night Inc., WIPO Case No. D2003-1027, <shperion.com>, Transfer
Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc. v. US Online Pharmacies, WIPO Case No. D2007-0368, <adipex-p.com>, Transfer
Komatsu Deutschland GmbH v. Ali Osman / ANS, WIPO Case No. D2009-0107, <komatsugermany.com>et al., Transfer
Allianz Sigorta A.S v. Efe Sancak, WIPO Case No. D2011-0111, <allianzemeklilik.com> and <allianzsigorta.com>, Transfer
RGM Trading, LLC v. rgm-trading.com, RGM-Trading / Ronald Perry, rgmthk.com, RGM-Trading / Bushan Shimpi, WIPO Case No. D2012-1049, <rgm-trading.com> and <rgmthk.com>, Transfer
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Kim Hyeonsuk a.k.a. Kim H. Suk, Domain Bar, Young N. and Kang M.N., WIPO Case No. D2014-1596, <audiplus.com> et al., Transfer
NA PALI SAS v. BWI Domains, Domain Manager, WIPO Case No. D2008-1859, <quiksilverstore.com>, Denied
BSH Home Appliances Corporation v. Michael Stanley / Michael Sipo, WIPO Case No. D2014-1433, <boschappliancepro.info> et al., Transfer
Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited v. David Hanley, WIPO Case No. D2016-1692, <msdhoni.com>, Transfer
Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited and Taylor Wimpey PLC v. Annette Johnson, Tangerineuk, WIPO Case No. D2016-2116, <tay1orwimpey.com>, Transfer
National Dial A Word Registry Pty Ltd and others v. 1300 Directory Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. DAU2008-0021, <13cars.com.au> et al., Denied
Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited, Tottenham Hostpur Public Limited, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Limited, The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-0331 <official-fulham-tickets.com> et al., Transfer
Boot Royalty Company, L.P., Justin Brands, Inc. v. Dauben, Inc. d/b/a Texas International Property Associates - NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2010-1090, <justinshoes.com>, Transfer
Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Cantor Index Limited v. Mark Mark, Chen Xian Sheng/Whois Protect, WIPO Case No. D2014-0125, <cantorforex.com> and <cantorindexforex.com>, Transfer
"Dr. Martens" International Trading GmbH, "Dr. Maertens" Marketing GmbH v. Posers/Philip Cox, WIPO Case No. D2011-1142, <drmartens-losangeles.com> et al., Transfer
Expedia Inc. and Hotels.com L.P. v. Arabia Horizons Tours LLC, WIPO Case No. DAE2014-0005, <expedia.co.ae> and <hotels.co.ae>, Transfer
Mr. Itay Hasid and Mr. Daniel Assis v. Asha Hussein, WIPO Case No. D2015-1026, <mobeego.com>, Transfer
Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and CME Group Inc. v. Johnson Atru, WIPO Case No. D2015-1941, <cmeclearing-eu.com>, Transfer
1.5 Can a complainant show UDRP-relevant rights in a personal name?
1.5.1 Personal names that have been registered as trademarks would provide standing for a complainant to file a UDRP case.
1.5.2 The UDRP does not explicitly provide standing for personal names which are not registered or otherwise protected as trademarks. In situations however where a personal name is being used as a trademark-like identifier in trade or commerce, the complainant may be able to establish unregistered or common law rights in that name for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case where the name in question is used in commerce as a distinctive identifier of the complainant's goods or services.
Merely having a famous name (such as a businessperson or cultural leader who has not demonstrated use of their personal name in a trademark/source-identifying sense), or making broad unsupported assertions regarding the use of such name in trade or commerce, would not likely demonstrate unregistered or common law rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint.
[See also section 1.3.]
1.5.1 Relevant decisions
Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, <madonna.com>, Transfer
Beyoncé Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja, WIPO Case No. D2010-1431, <beyoncefragrance.com>, Transfer
Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Larino Enterprices, WIPO Case No. D2013-0791, <richardbransoninvestment.com>, Transfer
Khloe Kardashian, Whalerock Celebrity Subscription, LLC, Khlomoney, Inc. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Privacy Protection Service Inc. d/b/a Privacyprotect.Org, WIPO Case No. D2015-1113, <khloekardashian.com>, Transfer
Halle Berry and Bellah Brands Incorporated v. Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2016-0256, <halleberry.com>, Transfer
Victoria Beckham v. David James, WIPO Case No. D2017-0035, <victoriabeckham.info>, Transfer
Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, WIPO Case No. D2000-0210, <juliaroberts.com>, Transfer
Dr. Michael Crichton v. In Stealth Mode, WIPO Case No. D2002-0874, <michael-crichton.com>, Transfer
Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2006-0560, <tomcruise.com>, Transfer
Fields for Senate v. Toddles Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-1510, <virginiafields.com>, et al., Denied
Jacques Chardeau, et al. v. MindViews,LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0778, <caillebotte.com>, Denied
Margaret C. Whitman v. Domains For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2008-1534, <megwhitmanforgovernor.com> et al., Denied
Jim Carrey v. BWI Domains, WIPO Case No. D2009-0563, <jimcarrey.com>, Transfer
Jay Leno v. Garrison Hintz,WIPO Case No. D2009-0569, <weeknightswithjayleno.com>, Transfer
Vanisha Mittal v. info@setrillonario.com, WIPO Case No. D2010-0810, <vanishamittal.com>, Denied
Ananyashree Birla v. Ali Madencioglu, WIPO Case No. D2013-1123, <ananyashreebirla.com>, Denied
Tracy Morgan v. Fundacion Private Whois / PPA Media Services, Ryan G Foo, WIPO Case No. D2013-0078, <tracymorgan.com>, Transfer
Ananyashree Birla v. Ali Madencioglu, WIPO Case No. D2013-1123, <ananyashreebirla.com>, Denied
Philippe Pierre Dauman v. Dinner Business, WIPO Case No. D2013-1255, <philippepierredauman.com>, Denied
Adam Anschel v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Tzvi Milshtein, WIPO Case No. D2015-1570, <adamanschel.com> et al., Transfer
Victor Topa v. Whoisguard Protected / "Victor Topa", WIPO Case No. D2015-2209, <victortopa.com> and <victortopa.md>, Denied
David Michael Bautista, Jr. v. Quantec LLC / Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Lisa Katz, Domain Protection LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-0397, <davebautista.com>, Transfer
1.6 Can a complainant's rights in a geographical term provide standing to file a UDRP complaint?
Geographical terms used only in their ordinary geographical sense, except where registered as a trademark, would not as such provide standing to file a UDRP case.
Geographical terms which are not used solely in a geographically descriptive sense (e.g., "Nantucket Nectars" for beverages) and which are registered as a trademark, would provide standing to file a UDRP case.
Panels have exceptionally found that geographical terms which are not registered as trademarks may support standing to file a UDRP complaint if the complainant is able to show that it has rights in the term sufficient to demonstrate consumer recognition of the mark in relation to the complainant's goods or services (often referred to as secondary meaning).
Under the UDRP however, it has generally proven difficult for an entity affiliated with or responsible for a geographical area (which has not otherwise obtained a relevant trademark registration) to show unregistered trademark rights in that geographical term on the basis of secondary meaning.
[See also section 1.3.]
It is further noted that the Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process ultimately declined to recommend specifically extending protection to geographical terms as such under the UDRP.
Kur- und Verkehrsverein St. Moritz v. StMoritz.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0617, <stmoritz.com>, Denied
Skipton Building Society v. Peter Colman, WIPO Case No. D2000-1217, <skipton.com>, Transfer
Brisbane City Council v. Joyce Russ Advertising Pty Limited, WIPO Case No. D2001-0069, <brisbane.com>, Denied
BAA plc, Aberdeen Airport Limited v. Mr. H. Hashimi, WIPO Case No. D2004-0717, <aberdeenairport.com>, Transfer
Province of Brabant Wallon v. Domain Purchase, NOLDC, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-0778, <brabant-wallon.org>, Denied
Commune of Zermatt and Zermatt Tourismus v. Activelifestyle Travel Network, WIPO Case No. D2007-1318, <zermatt.com>, Denied
Jumeirah International LLC, Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC v. Vertical Axis, Inc, Domain Administrator / Jumeira.com, WIPO Case No. D2009-0203, <jumeira.com>, Denied
Instra Corporation Pty Ltd v. Domain Management SPM, WIPO Case No. D2009-1097, <asiaegistry.com>et al., Transfer
Sentosa Development Corporation v. Jang Shih Chieh, WIPO Case No. D2010-1082, <sentosa.com>, Transfer
Thompson Island Outward Bound Education Center v. Larrie Noble/ Dirty Mackn Entertainment Corp, WIPO Case No. D2013-1144, <thompsonisland.org>, Transfer
Gold Coast Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. Digimedia.com L.P., WIPO Case No. D2013-1733, <goldcoast.com>, Denied
Ministre des Relations internationales, de la Francophonie et du Commerce extérieur (Minister of International Relations, La Francophonie and External Trade), acting in this proceeding for and on behalf of the Government of Québec v. Anything.com, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2013-2181, <quebec.com>, Denied
Gstaad Saanenland Tourismus v. Connecting Concepts BV, WIPO Case No. D2014-1666, <gstaadvalley.com>, Denied
Intermountain Health Care, Inc., IHC Health Services, Inc. v. Randy Delcore, WIPO Case No. D2017-0265, <cedarcityhospital.co> et al., Transfer
1.7 What is the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element?
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name.
This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. (This may also include recognizability by technological means such as search engine algorithms.) In some cases, such assessment may also entail a more holistic aural or phonetic comparison of the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name to ascertain confusing similarity.
While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.
In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant's mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant's reputation, or a pattern of multiple respondent domain names targeting the complainant's mark within the same proceeding, may support a finding of confusing similarity. On the other hand, if such website content does not obviously trade off the complainant's reputation, panels may find this relevant to an overall assessment of the case merits, especially under the second and third elements (with such panels sometimes finding it unnecessary to make a finding under the first element).
Issues such as the strength of the complainant's mark or the respondent's intent to provide its own legitimate offering of goods or services without trading off the complainant's reputation, are decided under the second and third elements. Panels view the first element as a threshold test concerning a trademark owner's standing to file a UDRP complaint, i.e., to ascertain whether there is a sufficient nexus to assess the principles captured in the second and third elements.
In this context, panels have also found that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant.
[See also section 1.15.]
Fondation Le Corbusier v. Monsieur Bernard Weber, Madame Heidi Weber, WIPO Case No. D2003-0251, <artlecorbusier.com> et al., Denied, Transfer in Part
Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. The Covance Campaign, WIPO Case No. D2004-0206, <covancecampaign.com>, Denied
V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. Ooar Supplies, WIPO Case No. D2004-0962, <absolutxxx.com>, Transfer
Ice House America, LLC v. Ice Igloo, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0649, <icehouseamerica.com>et al., Transfer
SoftCom Technology Consulting Inc. v. Olariu Romeo/Orv Fin Group S.L., WIPO Case No. D2008-0792, <myhostingfree.com>, Transfer
Harry Winston Inc. and Harry Winston S.A. v. Jennifer Katherman, WIPO Case No. D2008-1267, <hairywinston.com>, Denied
project.me GmbH v. Alan Lin, WIPO Case No. DME2009-0008, <project.me>, Denied
Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0227, <unofficialblackberrystore.com>, Transfer
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0323, <alli-xenical.com>, Transfer
Hertz System, Inc. v. Kwan-ming Lee, WIPO Case No. D2009-1165, <hzcar.com>, Denied
Mejeriforeningen Danish Dairy Board v. Cykon Technology Limited, WIPO Case No. D2010-0776, <lurpa.com>, Transfer
RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. Protected Domain Services/Dmytro Gerasymenko, WIPO Case No. D2010-1071, <rapidpedia.com>, Transfer
Mile, Inc. v. Michael Burg, WIPO Case No.D2010-2011, <lionsden.com>, Denied
Rockwool International A/S v. usrockwool.com / US Rockwool LLC, formerly US Fireproofing LLC, WIPO Case No. D2013-1022, <usrockwool.com>, Transfer
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Steven Scully, J&S Auto Repair, WIPO Case No. D2015-1001, <pmcannabis.com>, Transfer
Supercell Oy v. WhoisProxy.com Ltd / Jordan Rash, Application Automation LLC, WIPO Case No. D2015-1445, <clashbot.org>, Transfer
The Canadian Hockey Association and The Canadian Olympic Committee v. Lin Lin, WIPO Case No. D2016-0322, <canadaolympichockey.com> and <canadaolympicstore.com>, Transfer
Vivid Seats LLC v. Peter Smith / Domain Administrator, Domains by Proxy, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-1784, <viividseats.com> et al., Transfer, Denied in Part
VF Corporation v. Vogt Debra, WIPO Case No. D2016-2650, <bagpakonline.com> and <eastpake.com>, Transfer
Rae Jensan, EZ UPC v. James Johnson, EASYUPC / Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-2293, <easyupc.com>, Transfer
Florida National University, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Toby Schwarzkopf, WIPO Case No. D2017-0138, <floridanationaluniversityloanforgiveness.com>, Transfer
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW") v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Armands Piebalgs, WIPO Case No. D2017-0156, <bmdecoder.com> and <bmwdecoder.com>, Transfer
Alfred Dunhill, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Abdullah Altubayieb, WIPO Case No. D2017-0209, <richarddunhill.com>, Transfer
1.8 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements.
[See also section 2.5.]
Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, <ansellcondoms.com>, Transfer
Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Vanilla Limited/Vanilla Inc/Domain Finance Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2005-0587, <naturelle.com>et al., Cancellation, Denied in Part
eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo, WIPO Case No. D2006-1307, <ebaymoving.com>, Transfer
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Zeynel Demirtas, WIPO Case No. D2007-0768, <playboyturkey.com>, Transfer
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia, WIPO Case No. D2008-0923, <yourtamiflushop.com>, Transfer
BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd, BMA Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v. Cameron Jackson, WIPO Case No. D2008-1338, <auriasdiamonds.info>et al., Transfer
TPI Holdings, Inc. v. Carmen Armengol, WIPO Case No. D2009-0361, <autotradertransactions.com>, Transfer
Nintendo of America Inc. v. Fernando Sascha Gutierrez, WIPO Case No. D2009-0434, <unlimitedwiidownloads.com>, Transfer
Sensis Pty Ltd., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Yellow Page, Yellow Page Marketing B.V., WIPO Case No. D2010-0817, <yellowpage-adelaide.com> et al., Denied
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Arena International Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-0203, <buyvogue.com>, Transfer
LEGO Juris A/S v. DBA David Inc/ DomainsByProxy.com, WIPO Case No. D2011-1290, <legoninjagokai.com>, Transfer
Schering Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. v. Private Whois claritingeneric.com, WIPO Case No. D2012-0027, <claritingeneric.com>, Transfer
Google Inc. v. ShaheenYounas, WIPO Case No. D2012-1365, <youtubeurdu.com>, Transfer
M/s Daiwik Hotels Pvt. Ltd v. Senthil Kumaran S, Daiwik Resorts, WIPO Case No. D2015-1384, <daiwikresorts.com>, Transfer
Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Conan Corrigan, WIPO Case No. D2015-2316, <valiumuk10.com>, Transfer
Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Valero Energy, WIPO Case No. D2017-0075, <valeropetroleum.org>, Transfer
BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Oloyi, WIPO Case No. D2017-0284, <bhpbillitonusa.com>, Transfer
Allianz SE v. IP Legal, Allianz Bank Limited, WIPO Case No. D2017-0287, <allianzkenya.com>, Transfer
The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Cameron Jackson / PrivacyDotLink Customer 2440314, WIPO Case No. D2016-1671, <aaaclub.xyz> and <theamericanautomobileassociation.xyz>, Transfer
1.9 Is a domain name consisting of a misspelling of the complainant's trademark (i.e.,typosquatting) confusingly similar to the complainant's mark?
A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. Under the second and third elements, panels will normally find that employing a misspelling in this way signals an intention on the part of the respondent (typically corroborated by infringing website content) to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant.
Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers.
Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775, <wochovia.com>et al., Transfer
Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2004-0971, <fuijifilm.com>, Transfer
Humana Inc. v. Cayman Trademark Trust, WIPO Case No. D2006-0073, <humanna.com>, Transfer
Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2006-1043, <edmundss.com>, Transfer
Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2008-1302, <expresscripts.com>, Transfer
Sanofi v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / domain admin, WIPO Case No. D2013-0368, <sanifi.com>, Transfer
SIEMENS AG v. Omur Topkan, WIPO Case No. D2013-1318, <sıemens.com> [xn--semens-p9a.com], Transfer
Twitter, Inc. v. Ahmet Ozkan, WIPO Case No. D2014-0469, <twıtter.com> [xn--twtter-q9a.com], Transfer
Comerica Bank v. Online Management / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2014-1018, <c0merica.com>, Transfer
LinkedIn Corporation v. Daphne Reynolds, WIPO Case No. D2015-1679, <linkedlnjobs.com>, Transfer
Schneider Electric S.A. v. Domain Whois Protect Service / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-2333, <schnieder-electric.com>, Transfer
Sanofi, Genzyme Corporation v. Domain Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2016-1193, <genyzme.com>, Cancellation
1.10 How are trademark registrations with design elements or disclaimed text treated in assessing identity or confusing similarity?
Panel assessment of identity or confusing similarity involves comparing the (alpha-numeric) domain name and the textual components of the relevant mark. To the extent that design (or figurative/stylized) elements would be incapable of representation in domain names, these elements are largely disregarded for purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under the first element. Such design elements may be taken into account in limited circumstances e.g., when the domain name comprises a spelled-out form of the relevant design element.
On this basis, trademark registrations with design elements would prima facie satisfy the requirement that the complainant show "rights in a mark" for further assessment as to confusing similarity.
However where design elements comprise the dominant portion of the relevant mark such that they effectively overtake the textual elements in prominence, or where the trademark registration entirely disclaims the textual elements (i.e., the scope of protection afforded to the mark is effectively limited to its stylized elements), panels may find that the complainant's trademark registration is insufficient by itself to support standing under the UDRP. [See in particular section 1.2.3.]
To the extent the complainant could nevertheless establish UDRP standing on the basis of a mark with design elements, the existence of such elements (or a disclaimer) would be relevant to the panel's assessment of the second and third elements, e.g., in considering possible legitimate trademark co-existence or scenarios where the textual elements correspond to a dictionary term.
Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Center, Inc. v. Nett Corp., WIPO Case No. D2001-0031, <sweeps.com>, Denied
Meat and Livestock Commission v. David Pearce aka OTC / The Recipe for BSE,WIPO Case No. D2003-0645, <britishmeat.com>et al., Denied
J2 Global Communications, Inc. v. Ideas Plus, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0792, <e-fax.com>, Denied
Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd v. Gregory Rogers, WIPO Case No. D2006-0300, <assetloanco.net>, Transfer
Dreamstar Cash S.L. v. Brad Klarkson, WIPO Case No. D2007-1943, <gals4free.com>, Transfer
Hero v. The Heroic Sandwich, WIPO Case No. D2008-0779, <hero.com>, Denied
Consejo Regulador del Cava v. Adrian Lucas, WIPO Case No. D2008-1939, <cava.com>, Denied
Ideation Unlimited, Inc. v. Dan Myers, WIPO Case No. D2008-1441, <prescriptioncosmetics.com>, Denied
Which? Limited v. Whichcar.com c/o Whois Identity Shield / Vertical Axis, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2008-1637, <whichcar.com>, Transfer
Casa Editorial El Tiempo, S.A. v. Montanya Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2009-0103, <clubdesuscriptoreseltiempo.com>, Transfer
RUGGEDCOM, Inc. v. James Krachenfels,WIPO Case No. D2009-0130, <ruggedrouter.com>, Transfer with Dissenting Opinion
Ville de Paris v. Salient Properties LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-1279, <wifiparis.com>, Denied
Espire Infolabs Pvt. Ltd. v. TW Telecom, WIPO Case No. D2010-1092, <espire.com>, Denied
Islamic Bank of Britain Plc v. Ifena Consulting, Charles Shrimpton,WIPO Case No. D2010-0509, <islamic-bank.com>, Transfer
Limited Liability Company Infomedia v. c/o Office-Mail processing center / Whois privacy services, provided by DomainProtect LLC / 1) Eurofirm Ltd. 2) Ethno Share PO, Domain Manager, WIPO Case No. D2010-1239, <ethno.com>, Denied
Comservice SA v. Mdnh Inc., Brendhan Height, WIPO Case No. D2010-1591, <comservice.com>, Denied
Graça Artes Gráficas E Editora Ltda. v. Domain Amin, WIPO Case No. D2011-0734, <shoppingdopovo.com>, Denied
bambu, LLC v. Domains by Proxy, LLC/ Jamil Bouchareb, WIPO Case No. D2012-0902, <bambushop.com>, Transfer
Marco Aurich v. Johannes Kuehrer, World4You Webservice, WIPO Case No. D2012-1147, <domainhoster.info>, Denied
Mr. Ralph Anderl v. Yang Min, WIPO Case No. D2013-1226, <ic-berlinshop.com>, Transfer
The Coca-Cola Company v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Thien Le Trieu, Le Trieu Thien, WIPO Case No. D2015-2078, <xomtu.com>, Transfer
At World Properties, LLC v. Whois Agent, WHOIS PRIVACY PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. / Whois Agent, PROFILE GROUP, WIPO Case No. D2016-0440, <at.properties>, Denied
American Public University System, Inc. v. Toby Schwarzkopf / Kyle Kupher / Domains by Proxy, LLC / DreamHost, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-0070, <americanpublicuniversityloanforgiveness.com> and <americanpublicuniversitysystemloanforgiveness.com>, Transfer
1.11 Is the Top Level Domain relevant in determining identity or confusing similarity?
1.11.1 The applicable Top Level Domain ("TLD") in a domain name (e.g., ".com", ".club", ".nyc") is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
1.11.2 The practice of disregarding the TLD in determining identity or confusing similarity is applied irrespective of the particular TLD (including with regard to "new gTLDs"); the ordinary meaning ascribed to a particular TLD would not necessarily impact assessment of the first element. The meaning of such TLD may however be relevant to panel assessment of the second and third elements. [See in particular sections 2.14 and 3.2.1.]
For example, in cases where the combination of the mark and the TLD signals potential legitimate co-existence or fair use, and where the related website content supports such inference, panels would tend to focus their inquiry on the second element. On the other hand, in cases where the TLD corresponds to the complainant's area of trade so as to signal an abusive intent to confuse Internet users, panels have found this relevant to assessment under the third element.
1.11.3 Where the applicable TLD and the second-level portion of the domain name in combination contain the relevant trademark, panels may consider the domain name in its entirety for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (e.g., for a hypothetical TLD ".mark" and a mark "TRADEMARK", the domain name <trade.mark> would be confusingly similar for UDRP standing purposes).
CANAL + FRANCE v. Franck Letourneau, WIPO Case No. DTV2010-0012, <canalsat.tv>, Transfer
Bentley Motors Limited v. Domain Admin / Kyle Rocheleau, Privacy Hero Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1919, <bentleymotorcars.com>, Transfer
SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-0565, <sapteq.com>, Transfer
Bank Nagelmackers N.V. v. WhoisGuard, Inc / Paulo Giardini, WIPO Case No. D2016-0819, <nagelmackers.mobi>, Transfer
G4S Plc v. Noman Burki, WIPO Case No. D2016-1383, <g4splc.com>, Transfer
Groupon, Inc. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Vashti Scalise, WIPO Case No. D2016-2087, <grouponers.xyz>, Transfer
Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275, <rexel.red>, Transfer
Statoil ASA v. Daniel MacIntyre, Ethical Island, WIPO Case No. D2014-0369, <statoil.holdings> et al., Transfer
Slide Mountain Acquisition Company LLC v. Simon Nissim, lipstick boutique, WIPO Case No. D2014-0393, <loehmanns.clothing>, Transfer
Hultafors Group AB v. my domain limited, WIPO Case No. D2014-0597, <snickers.clothing>, Transfer
Sanofi v. Farris Nawas, WIPO Case No. D2014-0705, <sanofi.careers>, Transfer
Sheppard Industries Limited v. Tiagra Investments, Christopher Murphy / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1248 <avanti.bike>, Transfer
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. and Westin Hotel Management, L.P. v. Hyper.Directory Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1315, <westin.berlin>, Transfer
HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG, HUGO BOSS AG v. Max Brauer, CloudStudio, WIPO Case No. D2014-2029, <hugoboss.moda>, Transfer
Audi AG, Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A., Skoda Auto a.s., Volkswagen AG v. JUS TIN Pty Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-0827, <audi.social> et al., Transfer
Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Cesar Alvarez, WIPO Case No. D2016-2140, <virginmedia.shop>, Transfer
De Beers Intangibles Limited v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No. D2016-1465, <debeers.feedback>, Transfer
project.me GmbH v. Alan Lin, WIPO Case No. DME2009-0008, <project.me>, Denied
Banco Bradesco S/A v. Paulo Araujo, WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0049, <brades.co>, Transfer
Tesco Stores Limited v. Mat Feakins, WIPO Case No. DCO2013-0017, <tes.co>, Transfer
Zions Bancorporation v. Mohammed Akik Miah, WIPO Case No. D2014-0269, <zionsbank.holdings>, Transfer
Fifth Street Capital LLC v. Fluder (aka Pierre Olivier Fluder), WIPO Case No. D2014-1747, <fifthstreet.finance>, Transfer
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Masakazu/Living By Blue Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. DMW2015-0001, <b.mw>, Transfer
Totaljobs Group Limited v. Faisal Khan, CreativeMode Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2017-0295, <total.jobs>, Transfer
At World Properties, LLC v. Whois Agent, WHOIS PRIVACY PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. / Whois Agent, PROFILE GROUP, WIPO Case No. D2016-0440, <at.properties>, Denied
WeWork Companies, Inc. v. Michael Chiriac, Various Concepts Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-1817, <joinwe.work> et al., Transfer
Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Aprensa UG haftungsbeschraenkt, Mike Koefer, WIPO Verfahren Nr. D2016-2036, <swarov.ski>, Transfer
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Pacharapatr W., WIPO Case No. D2016-2465, <tyre.plus>, Transfer
1.12 Is a domain name consisting of the complainant's mark plus a third-party trademark confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark?
Where the complainant's trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other third-party marks (i.e., <mark1+mark2.tld>), is insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity to the complainant's mark under the first element.
The complaint may include evidence of the third-party mark holder's consent to file the case, and request that any transfer order be issued in favor of the filing complainant only. Absent such consent (and, where this was considered appropriate, having failed to reach the concerned third party by Procedural Order via the complainant), some panels have ordered transfer of the domain name without prejudice to the concerned third-party's rights. In certain highly exceptional circumstances, panels have ordered the cancellation of the disputed domain name.
[See also sections 4.11.1 and 4.13.]
Chevron Corporation v. Young Wook Kim, WIPO Case No. D2001-1142, <chevron-texaco.com>, Transfer
Yahoo! Inc. v. CPIC NET and Syed Hussain, WIPO Case No. D2001-0195, <yahooebay.org>, et al., Transfer
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Gary Portillo, WIPO Case No. D2012-1937, <rockvilleaudibmw.com> et al., Cancellation
Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Brenda Hawkins, WIPO Case No. D2013-0603, <gucciipadcase.net>, et al., Transfer
Decathlon SAS v. Nadia Michalski, WIPO Case No. D2014-1996, <decathlon-nike.com>, Transfer
Go Sport v. Clara Toussaint, WIPO Case No. D2015-0389, <gosport-nike.com>, Transfer
Cummins Inc. v. Dennis Goebel, WIPO Case No. D2015-1064, <fordcummins.com>, Transfer
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / MARK JAYSON DAVID, WIPO Case No. D2016-2194, <pallmall-marlboro.com>, Transfer
Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Aldi Stores Limited v. Ronan Barrett, WIPO Case No. D2016-2219, <aldiorlidl.com> and <lidloraldi.com>, Transfer
1.13 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term ("sucks cases") confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative or pejorative term (such as <[trademark]sucks.com>, <[trademark]구려.com>, <[trademark]吸.com>, or even <trademark.sucks>) is considered confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark for the purpose of satisfying standing under the first element. The merits of such cases, in particular as to any potential fair use, are typically decided under the second and third elements.
[See also section 2.6 and sections 3.1 and 3.2.1 generally.]
Panels have thereby observed that permitting such standing avoids gaming scenarios whereby appending a "sucks variation" would potentially see such cases fall outside the reach of the UDRP.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662, <wal-martsucks.com>, Transfer
A & F Trademark, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Justin Jorgensen, WIPO Case No. D2001-0900, <abercrombieandfilth.com>, Transfer
Asda Group Limited v. Mr. Paul Kilgour, WIPO Case No. D2002-0857, <asdasucks.net>, Denied
Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumin, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627, <dellorussosucks.com>et al., Transfer, Denied in part
Bakers Delight Holdings Ltd v. Andrew Austin, WIPO Case No. D2008-0006, <bakersdelightlies.com>, Denied
Red Bull GmbH v. Carl Gamel, WIPO Case No. D2008-0253, <redbullsucks.com>, Transfer
Southern California Regional Rail Authority v. Robert Arkow, WIPO Case No. D2008-0430, <metrolinksucks.com>,et al., Denied
Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0647, <sermosucks.com>, Denied
Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA, LLC v. European Travel Network, WIPO Case No. D2008-1325, <alamo-sucks.com>, Transfer
Air Austral v. Tian Yi Tong Investment Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2009-0020, <airaustralsucks.com>, Transfer
Streamtel Corporation SRL v. Ton Kamminga, WIPO Case No. D2010-0423, <streamtel-is-fraud.com>, Transfer
HBT Investments, LLC d/b/a Valley Goldmine v. Christopher D. Bussing, WIPO Case No. D2010-1326, <valleygoldminesucks.com>, Transfer
HM Publishers Holdings Ltd v. Marcus Costa Camargo Peres, WIPO Case No. D2013-1597, <fuckmacmillan.info>, Transfer
Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Zengwei, WIPO Case No. D2014-0243, <swarovskideschmuck.com>, Transfer
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Johnny Angelone, Aware Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2015-0380, <philipmorrisusasucks.com>, Transfer
Ironfx Global Limited v. MR Qaisar Saeed Butt / Moniker Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-1221, <ironfxscam.com>, Denied
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / J Gates, My Domain Estates, WIPO Case No. D2015-1542, <boehringeringelheimsucks.com>, Transfer
RoboForex (CY) Ltd v. Ekaterina Zhiltsova, WIPO Case No. D2016-0902, <anti-roboforex.com>, Transfer
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors v. Martin Rushton, WIPO Case No. D2016-0951, <rics-corruption.com> and <ricsfrance.com>, Transfer, Denied in Part
1.14 Is a domain name that consists or is comprised of a translation or transliteration of a trademark identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
A domain name that consists or is comprised of a translation or transliteration of a trademark will normally be found to be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of standing under the Policy, where the trademark – or its variant – is incorporated into or otherwise recognizable, through such translation/transliteration, in the domain name.
Compagnie Générale Des Etablissements Michelin – Michelin & Cie v. Graeme Foster,WIPO Case No. D2004-0279, <le-guide-rouge-recipes.com>, <redbook-recipes.com> et al., Transfer
Société pour l'Oeuvre et la Mémoire d'Antoine de Saint Exupéry – SuccessionSaintExupéry – D'Agay v. Perlegos Properties, WIPO Case No. D2005-1085, <thelittleprince.com>, Transfer
The Coca-Cola Company v. Keren, Chen, WIPO Case No. D2008-1852, <קוקהקולה.com>, Transfer
EPSON Europe BV v. cimin mehvar, Ali Yousofnia, WIPO Case No. D2010-2037, <اپسون.com>, Transfer
Société pour l'Oeuvre et la Mémoire d'Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Succession Saint Exupéry-d'Agay v. il piccolo principe di laurora rossella Ditta Individuale, WIPO Case No. D2011-1497, <ilpiccoloprincipe.com>, Transfer
Remy Martin & Co v. xiangwu meng, WIPO Case No. D2012-0069, <rentouma.net>, Transfer
La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Pharmaceutique v. Domain Whois Protection Service / sdfdsdf, WIPO Case No. D2012-1606, <li-fu-quan.com>, Transfer
McDonald's Corporation v. Fundacion Private Whois, WIPO Case No. D2012-1435, <mailesong.info>, Transfer
Yahoo! Inc. v. Mr. Omid Pournazar, WIPO Case No. D2012-1612, <ياهو.com> [<xn--mgb8dd93c.com>], Transfer
Happy Pancake AB v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Fredrik Johansson, WIPO Case No. D2014-0870, <gladapannkakan.com>, Transfer
OSRAM GmbH v. mingshu li, limingshu, WIPO Case No. D2015-0030, <aosilang.com>, Transfer
Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Wang Jihui Wang Jihui, WIPO Case No. D2015-0587,
<施华洛世奇.手机>, Transfer
Crédit industriel et commercial S.A. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-2447, <bank-cic.net>, Transfer
1.15 Is the content of the website associated with a domain name relevant in determining identity or confusing similarity?
The content of the website associated with the domain name is usually disregarded by panels when assessing confusing similarity under the first element.
In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name.
Such content will often also bear on assessment of the second and third elements, namely whether there may be legitimate co-existence or fair use, or an intent to create user confusion.
Fondation Le Corbusier v. Monsieur Bernard Weber, Madame Heidi Weber, WIPO Case No. D2003-0251, <artlecorbusier.com> et al., Denied, Transfer in Part
Harry Winston Inc. and Harry Winston S.A. v. Jennifer Katherman, WIPO Case No. D2008-1267, <hairywinston.com>, Denied
Schering-Plough Corporation, Schering Corporation v. Dan Myers, WIPO Case No. D2008-1641, <clarinx.com> and <clartin.com>, Transfer
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Steven Scully, J&S Auto Repair, WIPO Case No. D2015-1001, <pmcannabis.com>, Transfer
The Canadian Hockey Association and The Canadian Olympic Committee v. Lin Lin, WIPO Case No. D2016-0322, <canadaolympichockey.com> and <canadaolympicstore.com>, Transfer
Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Admin, Domain, WIPO Case No. D2016-2342, <scholls.com>, Transfer
VF Corporation v. Vogt Debra, WIPO Case No. D2016-2650, <bagpakonline.com> and <eastpake.com>, Transfer
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW") v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Armands Piebalgs, WIPO Case No. D2017-0156, <bmdecoder.com> and <bmwdecoder.com>, Transfer
2. Second UDRP Element
2.1 How do panels assess whether a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name?
The UDRP Rules in principle provide only for a single round of pleadings, and do not contemplate discovery as such. Accordingly, a panel's assessment will normally be made on the basis of the evidence presented in the complaint and any filed response. The panel may draw inferences from the absence of a response as it considers appropriate, but will weigh all available evidence irrespective of whether a response is filed. [See also in this regard sections 4.7 and 4.8.]
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of "proving a negative", requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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.
To demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, non-exclusive respondent defenses under UDRP paragraph 4(c) include the following:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
[See respectively sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.]
Over the course of many UDRP cases, panels have acknowledged further grounds which, while not codified in the UDRP as such, would establish respondent rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. For example, generally speaking, panels have accepted that aggregating and holding domain names (usually for resale) consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common phrases can be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the UDRP. [See in particular section 2.10.]
Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110, <belupo.com>, Transfer
Banco Itau S.A. v. Laercio Teixeira, WIPO Case No. D2007-0912, <itaushopping.com>, Transfer
Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393, <maybank.com>, Transfer
Accor v. Eren Atesmen, WIPO Case No. D2009-0701, <accorreviews.com>, Transfer
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. WalMart Careers, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-0285, <walmartcareers.com>, Transfer
B-Boy TV Ltd v. bboytv.com c/o Whois Privacy Service / Chief Rocka LTD, formerly named BreakStation LTD., WIPO Case No. D2012-2006, <bboytv.com>, Denied
OSRAM GmbH. v. Mohammed Rafi/Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2015-1149, <ojram.com>, Transfer
2.2 What qualifies as prior use, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services?
As expressed in UDRP decisions, non-exhaustive examples of prior use, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services may include: (i) evidence of business formation-related due diligence/legal advice/correspondence, (ii) evidence of credible investment in website development or promotional materials such as advertising, letterhead, or business cards (iii) proof of a genuine (i.e., not pretextual) business plan utilizing the domain name, and credible signs of pursuit of the business plan, (iv) bona fide registration and use of related domain names, and (v) other evidence generally pointing to a lack of indicia of cybersquatting intent. While such indicia are assessed pragmatically in light of the case circumstances, clear contemporaneous evidence of bona fide pre-complaint preparations is required.
Acknowledging that business plans and operations can take time to develop, panels have not necessarily required evidence of such use or intended use to be available immediately after registration of a domain name, but the passage of time may be relevant in assessing whether purported demonstrable preparations are bona fide or pretextual.
If not independently verifiable by the panel, claimed examples of use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services cannot be merely self-serving but should be inherently credible and supported by relevant pre-complaint evidence.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Top Investments, LLLP, WIPO Case No. D2011-0379, <mycvs.com>, Transfer with Dissenting Opinion
Asbach GmbH v. Econsult Ltd., d.b.a. Asbach Communities and Whois-Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2012-1225, <asbach.com>, Denied
Publicare Marketing Communications GmbH v. G.E.D. Faber / GAOS BV, WIPO Case No. D2012-1580, <publicare.com>, Denied
Puravankara Projects Limited v. Shiva Malhotra, WIPO Case No. D2013-0260, <purva.com>, Denied
Harpo, Inc. and Oprah's Farm, LLC v. Robert McDaniel, WIPO Case No. D2013-0585, <oprahsfarm.com> et al., Transfer
Etro S.p.A. v. Hernan Villalobos, WIPO Case No. D2014-0264, <etrolounge.com>, Denied
Pro Quidity B.V. v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Nicholas Hall, Hall Attorneys, P.C., WIPO Case No. D2014-0765, <proquidity.com>, Denied
Fotocom Société Anonyme v. PrivateName Services Inc. / Werner A. Krachtus, motiondrive AG, WIPO Case No. D2014-1769, <photo.com>, Denied
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Borut Bezjak, A Domains Limited, WIPO Case No. D2015-1128, <marlboro.party>, Denied
Autodesk, Inc. v. Brian Byrne, meshIP, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-0191, <autocadcloud.com> and <hostedautocad.com>, Transfer
2.3 How would a respondent show that it is commonly known by the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name?
Panels have addressed a range of cases involving claims that the domain name corresponds to the respondent's actual given name (including in combination with initials), stage name, nickname, or other observed moniker.
For a respondent to demonstrate that it (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name, it is not necessary for the respondent to have acquired corresponding trademark or service mark rights.
The respondent must however be "commonly known" (as opposed to merely incidentally being known) by the relevant moniker (e.g., a personal name, nickname, corporate identifier), apart from the domain name. Such rights, where legitimately held/obtained, would prima facie support a finding of rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP.
Insofar as a respondent's being commonly known by a domain name would give rise to a legitimate interest under the Policy, panels will carefully consider whether a respondent's claim to be commonly known by the domain name – independent of the domain name – is legitimate. Mere assertions that a respondent is commonly known by the domain name will not suffice; respondents are expected to produce concrete credible evidence.
Absent genuine trademark or service mark rights, evidence showing that a respondent is commonly known by the domain name may include: a birth certificate, driver's license, or other government-issued ID; independent and sustained examples of secondary material such as websites or blogs, news articles, correspondence with independent third parties; sports or hobby club publications referring to the respondent being commonly known by the relevant name; bills/invoices; or articles of incorporation. Panels will additionally typically assess whether there is a general lack of other indicia of cybersquatting. In appropriate cases panels may refer to the respondent's domain name-related track record more generally.
Red Bull GmbH v. Harold Gutch, WIPO Case No. D2000-0766, <redbull.org>, Transfer
A. Modefine S.A. v. A.R. Mani, WIPO Case No. D2001-0537, <armani.com>, Denied
Banco Espirito Santo S.A. v. Bancovic, WIPO Case No. D2004-0890, <bancoespiritosanto.com>, Transfer
Julie & Jason, Inc. d/b/a The Mah Jongg Maven v. Faye Scher d/b/a Where the Winds Blow, WIPO Case No. D2005-0073, <themahjonggmaven.com>, Transfer
Sanofi-aventis, Aventis Inc. v. Allegra Bonner/Domains By Proxy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1618, <allegrashock.com>, Denied
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha aka Sony Corporation v. Sony Holland, WIPO Case No. D2008-1025, <sonyholland.com>, Denied
Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Duxpoint and Alejandro Gomez, WIPO Case No. D2008-1799, <danonino.org>, Transfer
Grundfos Holding A/S v. PrivacyProtect.org / Incredible SEO Mehul (Sailesh Patel / Ajay Soni), WIPO
Case No. D2011-1355, <groundforcepumps.com>, Denied
Alessandro International GmbH v. Alessandro Gualandi, WIPO Case No. D2014-2111, <alessandro.com>, Denied
Argenta Spaarbank NV v. Barbara Lesimple / Argenthal Private Capital Limited, WIPO Case No. D2015-0467, <argenthal.com>, Denied
CKL Holdings N.V. v. Paul Flammea, WIPO Case No. D2016-1340, <flammea.com>, Denied
2.4 How does the UDRP account for legitimate fair use of domain names?
As is evident in the Report of the First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, fairness – both in procedural and in substantive terms – is a lynchpin of a credible dispute resolution system. A number of UDRP cases decided in a defaulting respondent's favor bear strong witness to this.
The UDRP codifies this foundational principle in many ways. For example, the UDRP stipulates that certain notification obligations should be met so that a respondent is aware of and given an opportunity to present its case. As a more substantive example, UDRP paragraph 4(c)(iii) provides that a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by providing evidence of "legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the [complainant's] trademark or service mark."
At the same time, in assessing allegations of bad faith, consideration factors provided under the third UDRP element address a range of unfair practices.
Relevant decisions
Human Resource Certification Institute v. Tridibesh Satpathy, Edusys, WIPO Case No. D2010-0291, <hrcistudy.com>, Denied
Intuit, Inc. v. Privacyprotect.org / Niveditha.G, Cosmic IT Services Pvt. Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2011-1714, <quickbooksindia.com>, Denied
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watts Guerra Craft LLP, WIPO Case No. D2012-0486, <byettacancer.com>, Denied
DOTMED.COM, INC. v. Hexap and Promopixel SARL, WIPO Case No. D2012-1117, <aboutdotmed.org> et al., Denied
CFA Properties, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC and John Selvig, WIPO Case No. D2012-1618, <chickfilafoundation.com>, Denied
Global Personals, LLC v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Thomas Kupracz, WIPO Case No. D2013-0528, <best-fling-sites.com>, Denied
BSH Home Appliances Corporation v. Michael Stanley / Michael Sipo, WIPO Case No. D2014-1433, <boschappliancepro.info> et al., Transfer
Adam Anschel v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Tzvi Milshtein, WIPO Case No. D2015-1570, <adamanschel.com>, Transfer
Ironfx Global Limited v. MR Qaisar Saeed Butt / Moniker Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-1221, <ironfxscam.com>, Denied
Titan Enterprises (Qid) Ply Ltd v. Dale Cross / Contact Privacy Inc, WIPO Case No. D2015-2062, <bewareoftitangarages.com>, Denied
Dagbladet Børsen A/S v. Laurent Mermet, WIPO Case No. D2016-1814, <børsen.com>, Denied
2.5 What are some core factors UDRP panels look at in assessing fair use?
Fundamentally, a respondent's use of a domain name will not be considered "fair" if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner; the correlation between a domain name and the complainant's mark is often central to this inquiry.
2.5.1 The nature of the domain name
Generally speaking, UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant's trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation.
Even where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second- or top-level), UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
As described in more detail below and in sections 2.6 through section 2.8, UDRP panels have articulated a broad continuum of factors useful in assessing possible implied sponsorship or endorsement.
At one end, certain geographic terms (e.g., <trademark-usa.com>, or <trademark.nyc>), or terms with an "inherent Internet connotation" (e.g., <e-trademark.com>, <buy-trademark.com>, or <trademark.online>) are seen as tending to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.
At the other extreme, certain critical terms (e.g., <trademarksucks.com>) tend to communicate, prima facie at least, that there is no such affiliation.
In between, certain additional terms within the trademark owner's field of commerce or indicating services related to the brand, or which are not obviously critical (e.g., <okidataparts.com>, <nascartours.com>, <covancecampaign.com>, or <meissencollector.com>), may or may not by themselves trigger an inference of affiliation, and would normally require a further examination by the panel of the broader facts and circumstances of the case – particularly including the associated website content – to assess potential respondent rights or legitimate interests.
2.5.2 Circumstances beyond the domain name itself
Beyond looking at the domain name and the nature of any additional terms appended to it (whether descriptive, laudatory, derogatory, etc.), panels assess whether the overall facts and circumstances of the case support a claimed fair use.
To facilitate this assessment, panels have found the following factors illustrative: (i) whether the domain name has been registered and is being used for legitimate purposes and not as a pretext for commercial gain or other such purposes inhering to the respondent's benefit, (ii) whether the respondent reasonably believes its use (whether referential, or for praise or criticism) to be truthful and well-founded, (iii) whether it is clear to Internet users visiting the respondent's website that it is not operated by the complainant, (iv) whether the respondent has refrained from engaging in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to marks held by the complainant or third parties, (v) where appropriate, whether a prominent link (including with explanatory text) is provided to the relevant trademark owner's website, (vi) whether senders of email intended for the complainant but (because of user confusion) directed to the respondent are alerted that their message has been misdirected, (vii) whether there is an actual connection between the complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name and the corresponding website content, and not to a competitor, or an entire industry, group, or individual, and (viii) whether the domain name registration and use by the respondent is consistent with a pattern of bona fide activity (whether online or offline).
2.5.3 Commercial activity
In the broadest terms, while panels will weigh a range of case-specific factors such as those listed above in section 2.5.2, judging whether a respondent's use of a domain name constitutes a legitimate fair use will often hinge on whether the corresponding website content prima facie supports the claimed purpose (e.g., for referential use, commentary, criticism, praise, or parody), is not misleading as to source or sponsorship, and is not a pretext for tarnishment or commercial gain.
Notably in this regard, commercial gain may include the respondent gaining or seeking reputational and/or bargaining advantage, even where such advantage may not be readily quantified. [See further section 3.1.4.]
Similarly, a respondent's use of a complainant's mark to redirect users (e.g., to a competing site) would not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests.
While specific case factors have led panels to find that fair use need not always be categorically noncommercial in nature, unambiguous evidence that the site is not primarily intended for commercial gain, e.g., the absence of commercial or pay-per-click (PPC) links or references to a respondent's business, would tend to indicate a lack of intent to unfairly profit from the complainant's reputation.
Panels also tend to look at whether a response is filed (and the credibility thereof), whether the respondent provides false contact information or engages in cyberflight, and whether the respondent has engaged in a pattern of trademark-abusive domain name registrations.
The above-described broad concept of fair use is explored below in the more specific contexts of (i) criticism sites, (ii) fan sites, and (iii) nominative use.
Fulham Football Club (1987) Limited, Tottenham Hostpur Public Limited, West Ham United Football Club PLC, Manchester United Limited, The Liverpool Football Club And Athletic Grounds Limited v. Domains by Proxy, Inc./ Official Tickets Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-0331, <official-fulham-tickets.com> et al., Transfer
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / UFCW International Union, WIPO Case No. D2013-1304, <reallywalmart.com> et al., Transfer
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras v. Ivo Lucio Santana Marcelino Da Silva, WIPO Case No. D2014-1331, <maracutaiasnapetrobras.com>, Denied
201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick, WIPO Case No. D2014-1359, <luminacondo.com>, Transfer
Iflscience Limited v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Dr Chauncey Siemens, WIPO Case No. D2016-0909, <iflscience.org>, Transfer
Eli Lilly and Company and Novartis Tiergesundheit AG v. Manny Ghumman / Mr. NYOB / Jesse Padilla, WIPO Case No. D2016-1698, <buycomfortis.com> et al., Transfer
The Procter & Gamble Company v. Whoisguard, Inc. / Enzo Gucci, Xtremcare, Tony Mancini, USDIET, USDIET Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2016-1881, <achetercrest.com>, Transfer
The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo Limited v. Identity Protection Service, Identity Protect Limited / Martin Clegg, WM Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2016-2290, <edinburghmilitarytattootickets.com>, Transfer
Suncor Energy Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / andre bechamp, WIPO Case No. D2012-2123, <suncorcalgary.com> et al., Transfer
Veritas Investments, Inc. v. Private Registrant /Jamie Campbell, WIPO Case No. D2014-0010, <veritasinvestments.net>, Denied
Angelica Fuentes Téllez v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Angela Brink, WIPO Case No. D2014-1860, <angelissima.com>, Denied
Alessandro International GmbH v. Alessandro Gualandi, WIPO Case No. D2014-2111, <alessandro.com>, Denied
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Borut Bezjak, A Domains Limited, WIPO Case No. D2015-1128, <marlboro.party>, Denied
Azimo Ltd. v. Vladimir Zubkov, WIPO Case No. D2016-2608, <azimoreview.com>, Denied
Harpo, Inc. and Oprah's Farm, LLC v. Robert McDaniel, WIPO Case No. D2013-0585, <oprahsfarm.com> and <oprahsfarm.net>, Transfer
Richemont International SA v. Turvill Consultants, WIPO Case No. D2014-0862, <piagetwatch.com> and <piagetwatches.com>, Transfer
Carlos Alberto Vives Restrepo v. WSJ Trade / Wilman Villegas, WIPO Case No. D2015-0919, <cumbiahouse.com>, Transfer
Pfizer Inc. v. Ubrokerage inc, WIPO Case No. D2015-1927, <sayanapress.com>, Transfer
Segway Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Arthur Andreasyan, NIM, WIPO Case No. D2016-0725, <segawayboard.com> and <segawayhoverboard.com>, Transfer
Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye, WIPO Case No. D2016-1747, <byvalentino.com> et al., Transfer
2.6 Does a criticism site support respondent rights or legitimate interests?
As noted above, UDRP jurisprudence recognizes that the use of a domain name for fair use such as noncommercial free speech, would in principle support a respondent's claim to a legitimate interest under the Policy.
2.6.1 To support fair use under UDRP paragraph 4(c)(iii), the respondent's criticism must be genuine and noncommercial; in a number of UDRP decisions where a respondent argues that its domain name is being used for free speech purposes the panel has found this to be primarily a pretext for cybersquatting, commercial activity, or tarnishment.
2.6.2 Panels find that even a general right to legitimate criticism does not necessarily extend to registering or using a domain name identical to a trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld> (including typos)); even where such a domain name is used in relation to genuine noncommercial free speech, panels tend to find that this creates an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation. In certain cases involving parties exclusively from the United States, some panels applying US First Amendment principles have found that even a domain name identical to a trademark used for a bona fide noncommercial criticism site may support a legitimate interest.
2.6.3 Where the domain name is not identical to the complainant's trademark, but it comprises the mark plus a derogatory term (e.g., <trademarksucks.tld>), panels tend to find that the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if such use is prima facie noncommercial, genuinely fair, and not misleading or false. Some panels have found in such cases that a limited degree of incidental commercial activity may be permissible in certain circumstances (e.g., as "fundraising" to offset registration or hosting costs associated with the domain name and website).
[See also sections 1.8 and 1.13 with respect to the first UDRP element.]
[See also sections 2.5 and 2.7.]
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662, <wal-martsucks.com>, Transfer
Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0647, <sermosucks.com>, Denied
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watts Guerra Craft LLP, WIPO Case No. D2012-0486, <byettacancer.com>, Denied
Towers on the Park Condominium v. Paul Adao, WIPO Case No. D2012-1054, <towersonthepark.com>, Denied
Mr. Willem Vedovi, Galerie Vedovi S.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jane Kelly, WIPO Case No. D2014-0780, <vedovi-gallery.com> et al., Transfer, Denied in Part
MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. William Bookout, WIPO Case No. D2014-1821, <mufgunionbankna.com> et al., Denied
Northwestel Inc. v. John Steins, WIPO Case No. D2015-0447, <northwestel.com>, Transfer
De Beers Intangibles Limited v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No. D2016-1465, <debeers.feedback>, Transfer
Azimo Ltd. v. Vladimir Zubkov, WIPO Case No. D2016-2608, <azimoreview.com>, Denied
Bernardelli Cesarina v. Paola Ferrario, Ferrario Photography, WIPO Case No. D2017-0091, <farmaciabernardellicaione.com> et al., Transfer
Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumin, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627, <dellorusso.info> and <dellorussosucks.com>, Transfer, Denied in Part
Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0647, <sermosucks.com>, Denied
The First Baptist Church of Glenarden v. Melvin Jones, WIPO Case No. D2009-0022, <fbcglenarden.com>, Transfer
Mr. Willem Vedovi, Galerie Vedovi S.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jane Kelly, WIPO Case No. D2014-0780, <vedovi-gallery.com> et al., Transfer, Denied in Part
Puravankara Projects Limited v. Saurabh Singh, WIPO Case No. D2014-2054, <puravankaraprojects.com>, Transfer
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watts Guerra Craft LLP, WIPO Case No. D2012-0486, <byettacancer.com>, Denied
Mr. Willem Vedovi, Galerie Vedovi S.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jane Kelly, WIPO Case No. D2014-0780, <vedovi-gallery.com> et al., Transfer, Denied in Part
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras v. Ivo Lucio Santana Marcelino Da Silva, WIPO Case No. D2014-1331, <maracutaiasnapetrobras.com>, Denied
Nix Solutions Ltd. Limited Liability Company v. WhoisGuard Protected / Shaun Ferguson, WIPO Case No. D2014-1475, <nixsolutions-sucks.com> and <nixsolutionssucks.com>, Denied
Moog Inc. v. Andrew Botte, Sayfa Workwear Limited, WIPO Case No. D2014-1484, <moogagm.com> et al., Denied
Mobile Mini, Inc. v. Derek Carmichael, WIPO Case No. D2015-0350, <mobileminisucks.com>, Transfer
Titan Enterprises (Qid) Ply Ltd v. Dale Cross / Contact Privacy Inc, WIPO Case No. D2015-2062, <bewareoftitangarages.com>, Denied
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors v. Martin Rushton, WIPO Case No. D2016-0951, <rics-corruption.com> and <ricsfrance.com>, Transfer, Denied in Part
2.7 Does a fan site support respondent rights or legitimate interests in a domain name?
Many of the considerations applied in relation to criticism sites, as discussed above in section 2.6, also are considered by panels as relevant in relation to fan sites.
2.7.1 As with criticism sites discussed above, for purposes of assessing fair use under UDRP paragraph 4(c)(iii), a respondent's fan site must be active, genuinely noncommercial, and clearly distinct from any official complainant site. Again, similar to claimed criticism sites, there are a number of UDRP cases in which the respondent claims to have a true fan site but the panel finds that it is primarily a pretext for cybersquatting or commercial activity.
2.7.2 Where a domain name which is identical to a trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld>) is being used in relation to a genuine noncommercial fan site, panels have tended to find that a general right to operate a fan site (even one that is supportive of the mark owner) does not necessarily extend to registering or using a domain name that is identical to the complainant's trademark, particularly as the domain name may be misunderstood by Internet users as being somehow sponsored or endorsed by the trademark owner. (See discussion of inter alia misrepresentation at section 2.5 above.) In such cases, where the domain name is identical to the trademark, panels have also noted that this prevents the trademark holder from exercising its rights to the mark and so managing its presence on the Internet, including through a corresponding email address. However, as with criticism sites, in certain cases involving parties exclusively from the United States, some panels applying US First Amendment principles have found that even a domain name identical to a trademark used for a bona fide noncommercial fan site may support a legitimate interest.
2.7.3 Where the domain name is not identical to the complainant's trademark, i.e., it comprises the mark plus an additional, typically descriptive or laudatory term (e.g., <celebrity-fan.tld>), noting the factors listed above at section 2.5.2, panels tend to find that the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the mark as part of the domain name for a fan site if such use is considered to be fair in all of the circumstances of the case. Where such a site is noncommercial in nature, this would tend to support a finding that the use is a fair one. Some panels have found in such cases that a limited degree of incidental commercial activity may be permissible in certain circumstances (e.g., to offset registration or hosting costs associated with the domain name and website).
[See also generally section 1.8, and sections 2.5, and 2.6.]
Stoneygate 48 Limited and Wayne Mark Rooney v. Huw Marshall, WIPO Case No. D2006-0916, <waynerooney.com>, Transfer
Estate of Francis Newton Souza v. ZWYX.org Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-0221, <fnsouza.com>, Denied
Ain-Jeem, Inc. v. Barto Enterprises, Inc., Philip Barto, WIPO Case No. D2007-1841, <kareemabduljabbar.com>, Transfer
Burberry Limited v. Carlos Lim, WIPO Case No. D2011-0344, <burberryworld.com>, Transfer
Miranda Kerr v. orangesarecool.com, WIPO Case No. D2013-0553, <kerr-miranda.com> et al., Transfer
Sofia Vergara v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. / Guy Bouchard, WIPO Case No. D2014-2008, <sofiavergara.org>, Transfer
Comcast Corporation v. Tonic Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-1617, <thexfinitycenter.com> and <xfinitytheatre.net>, Transfer
Volkswagen AG v. Thijs van der Tuin, WIPO Case No. D2015-2106, <volkswagen-formula1.com> et al., Cancellation
Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bill Keith, WIPO Case No. D2000-0299, <montyroberts.net>, Transfer
Nintendo of America Inc. v. Alex Jones, WIPO Case No. D2000-0998, <legendofzelda.com>, Denied
David Gilmour, David Gilmour Music Limited and David Gilmour Music Overseas Limited v. Ermanno Cenicolla, WIPO Case No. D2000-1459, <davidgilmour.com>, Transfer
Russell Peters v. George Koshy and Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0173, <russelpeters.com>, Transfer
The Jennifer Lopez Foundation v. Jeremiah Tieman, Jennifer Lopez Net, Jennifer Lopez, Vaca Systems LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0057, <jenniferlopez.net> and <jenniferlopez.org>, Transfer
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Kunal Gangar, WIPO Case No. D2013-0578, <samsunghub.com>, Denied
Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v. Peter Hillbricht, WIPO Case No. D2014-0095, <meissencollector.com>, Denied
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited v. Mr David Redshaw, Auto Crowd, Auto Crowd Group / MEDIAGROUP24/ WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-0589, <bmwenthusiastsclub.com> et al., Transfer
Volkswagen AG v. Constantin Amann, WIPO Case No. D2015-2011, <volkswagen.rocks>, Transfer
Etihad Airways v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc / Hamza Ali, WIPO Case No. D2016-0615, <vetihad.com>, Denied
2.8 How do panels assess claims of nominative (fair) use by resellers or distributors?
While the following section primarily concerns cases involving "bait and switch" or other related unfair trade practices, many of the principles outlined above, especially at section 2.5 with respect to fair use, underpin the following section.
2.8.1 Panels have recognized that resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant's trademark to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant's goods or services may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Outlined in the "Oki Data test", the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case:
(i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
(ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services;
(iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder; and
(iv) the respondent must not try to "corner the market" in domain names that reflect the trademark.
The Oki Data test does not apply where any prior agreement, express or otherwise, between the parties expressly prohibits (or allows) the registration or use of domain names incorporating the complainant's trademark.
2.8.2 Cases applying the Oki Data test usually involve a domain name comprising a trademark plus a descriptive term (e.g., "parts", "repairs", or "location"), whether at the second-level or the top-level. At the same time, the risk of misrepresentation has led panels to find that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in cases involving a domain name identical to the complainant's trademark. [See section 2.5.1 above.]
Panels have found that PPC websites do not normally meet the Oki Data requirements as they do not themselves directly offer the goods or services at issue.
Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, <okidataparts.com>, Denied
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0095, <experiancredit.com>et al., Transfer
Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0946, <discount-marlboro-cigarettes.com>, Transfer
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Del Fabbro Laurent, WIPO Case No. D2004-0481, <porsche-buy.com>et al., Denied
National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection / The Racin' Connection, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1524, <nascartours.com>, Denied
ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., ITT Corporation v. Douglas Nicoll, Differential Pressure Instruments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2008-0936, <ittbarton.com>et al., Denied
MasterCard International Incorporated v. Global Access, WIPO Case No. D2008-1940, <mastercards.com>, Transfer
Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0227, <unofficialblackberrystore.com>, Transfer
Intex Recreation Corp. v. RBT, Inc., Ira Weinstein,WIPO Case No. D2010-0119, <intexpool.com>, Transfer
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., The Sheraton LLC, SheratonInternational Inc., Societe des Hotels Meridien, Westin Hotel ManagementL.P. v. Media Insight a/k/a Media Insights, WIPO Case No. D2010-0211,<sheratonnassaubeachresort.com>, Transfer
National Association of Realtors v. John Fothergill, WIPO Case No. D2010-1284, <listonrealtor.com>, Transfer
General Motors LLC v. Flashcraft, Inc DBA Cad Company, WIPO Case No. D2011-2117, <cadillacperformance.com>, Denied
Furla S.P.A. v. Cai Jin Yong, WIPO Case No. DCO2012-0011, <furla.com.co>, Transfer
Hermes International v. Brian E. Nielsen, WIPO Case No. D2013-1407, <hermesbyhabitjp.org> et al., Transfer
Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Nguyen Van Dien, WIPO Case No. D2014-0490, <baohanhelectrolux.net>, Transfer
BSH Home Appliances Corporation v. Michael Stanley / Michael Sipo, WIPO Case No. D2014-1433, <boschappliancepro.info> et al., Transfer
Iveco S.p.A. v. Cong ty TNHH san xuat va TM Khang Thinh, NA, WIPO Case No. D2015-2249, <ivecovn.com>, Transfer
Autodesk, Inc. v. Brian Byrne, meshIP, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-0191, <autocadcloud.com> and <hostedautocad.com>, Transfer
Motorola, Inc. v. NewGate Internet, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0079, <talkabout.com>, Transfer with Dissenting Opinion
General Electric Company v. Japan, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0410, <japan-ge.com>, Transfer
Rada Mfg. Co. v. J. Mark Press a/k/a J. Mark Cutlery, WIPO Case No. D2004-1060, <radacutlerysales.com>, Transfer
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Canadian Pharmacy Network Online, WIPO Case No. D2005-1203, <canadian-pharmacy-xeloda.com>, Transfer
X-ONE B.V. v. Robert Modic, WIPO Case No. D2010-0207, <gaastrashop.com>, Transfer
Vibram S.p.A. v. Chen yanbing, WIPO Case No. D2010-0981, <discountvibramfivefingers.com>, Transfer
Beyoncé Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja, WIPO Case No. D2010-1431, <beyoncefragrance.com>, Transfer
Johnson & Johnson v. Ebubekir Ozdogan, WIPO Case No. D2015-1031, <desitin-pisik-kremi.com> and <listerineturkiye.com>, Transfer, Terminated in Part
Eli Lilly and Company and Novartis Tiergesundheit AG v. Manny Ghumman / Mr. NYOB / Jesse Padilla, WIPO Case No. D2016-1698, <buycomfortis.com> et al., Transfer
Rakuten Kobo Inc. v. World Public Library, WIPO Case No. D2016-1708, <kobolibrary.com> and <kobolibrary.org>, Transfer
2.9 Do "parked" pages comprising pay-per-click links support respondent rights or legitimate interests?
Applying UDRP paragraph 4(c), panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant's mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.
Panels have additionally noted that respondent efforts to suppress PPC advertising related to the complainant's trademark (e.g., through so-called "negative keywords") can mitigate against an inference of targeting the complainant.
Panels have recognized that the use of a domain name to host a page comprising PPC links would be permissible – and therefore consistent with respondent rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP – where the domain name consists of an actual dictionary word(s) or phrase and is used to host PPC links genuinely related to the dictionary meaning of the word(s) or phrase comprising the domain name, and not to trade off the complainant's (or its competitor's) trademark.
In cases involving a website that is not predominantly a "typical" parked or PPC site (e.g., a blog, forum, or other informational page), where other clear, non-pretextual indicia of respondent rights or legitimate interests are present, some panels have been prepared to accept the incidental limited presence of PPC links as not inconsistent with respondent rights or legitimate interests.
[See also section 3.5.]
Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright, WIPO Case No. D2007-0267, <express-scrips.com>, Transfer
Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415, <proforcekarate.com> et al., Transfer
Gold Medal Travel Group plc v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D2007-1902, <goldmedal.com>, Denied
Legacy Health System v. Nijat Hassanov, WIPO Case No. D2008-1708, <legacyhealthsystem.com>, Transfer
Mpire Corporation v. Michael Frey, WIPO Case No. D2009-0258, <widgebucks.com>, Transfer
Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273, <pentiumgroup.net>, Transfer
Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0462, <compart.com>, Transfer
Donald J. Trump v. Mediaking LLC d/b/a Mediaking Corporation and Aaftek Domain Corp., WIPO Case No. D2010-1404, <trumplasvegas.com>, Transfer
Paris Hilton v. Deepak Kumar, WIPO Case No. D2010-1364, <parishiltonheiress.com>, Transfer
Lardi Ltd v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, WIPO Case No. D2010-1437, <larditrans.com>, Transfer
Havanna S.A. v. Brendan Hight, Mdnh Inc, WIPO Case No. D2010-1652, <havanna.com>, Denied
Enrique Salinas Pérez v. Buydomains.com, Inventory Management, WIPO Case No. D2011-1950, <solanum.com>, Denied
King.com Limited and Midasplayer.com Ltd. v. Robertson J M Price, Domains By Proxy, LLC, Robertson Price, Scrapple Labs, WIPO Case No. D2014-1081, <candycrush-cheats.com> et al., Transfer, Denied in Part
Bally Gaming, Inc. d/b/a bally technologies v. Dreamhost, LLC / Aaron Stein, WIPO Case No. D2015-0757, <caribbean-stud-poker-online.com> et al., Transfer
E-Renter USA Ltd. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID: 55391430909834, WhoIs Privacy Services Pty. Ltd. / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc, WIPO Case No. D2015-0784, <erenter.com>, Denied
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Borut Bezjak, A Domains Limited, WIPO Case No. D2015-1128, <marlboro.party>, Denied
Fontem Holdings 4, B.V. v. J- B-, Limestar Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-0344, <blucigarettes.org>, Transfer
Candi Controls, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. / Domain Vault LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-0818, <candi.com>, Denied
Billy Bob's Texas IP Holding LLC v. Domain Administrator, Name Administration Inc. (BVI), WIPO Case No. D2016-1221, <billybobs.com>, Denied
Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2016-2302, <virginemdia.com> et al., Transfer
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / George Ring, DN Capital Inc., WIPO Case No. D2017-0302, <gardasilvaccine.com>, Transfer
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Wang De Bing, WIPO Case No. D2017-0363, <adm.website>, Transfer
2.10 Does a respondent have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name comprised of a dictionary word/phrase or acronym?
The fact that a particular term has a dictionary meaning is sometimes confused with the notion of a "generic" term. When used in a non-dictionary distinctive sense (i.e., in a manner that bears no relation to the goods or services being sold), such dictionary terms can function as "arbitrary" trademarks. (See the "orange" example below.)
2.10.1 Panels have recognized that merely registering a domain name comprised of a dictionary word or phrase does not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on the respondent; panels have held that mere arguments that a domain name corresponds to a dictionary term/phrase will not necessarily suffice. In order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on its dictionary meaning, the domain name should be genuinely used, or at least demonstrably intended for such use, in connection with the relied-upon dictionary meaning and not to trade off third-party trademark rights.
For example, a hypothetical respondent may well have a legitimate interest in the domain name <orange.com> if it uses the domain name for a website providing information about the fruit or the color orange. The same respondent would not however have a legitimate interest in the domain name if the corresponding website is aimed at goods or services that target a third-party trademark (in this example: Orange, well-known inter alia for telecommunications and Internet services) which uses the same term as a trademark in a non-dictionary sense.
Panels have assessed cases involving common phrases (whether spelled out or numerical) corresponding in whole or in part to numbers (e.g., 24/7 or 365) in a similar manner as dictionary terms.
Panels also tend to look at factors such as the status and fame of the relevant mark and whether the respondent has registered and legitimately used other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases in connection with the respective dictionary meaning.
[See generally section 3.2.1.]
2.10.2 For a respondent to have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name comprising an acronym, the respondent's evidence supporting its explanation for its registration (and any use) of the domain name should indicate a credible and legitimate intent which does not capitalize on the reputation and goodwill inherent in the complainant's mark.
Allocation Network GmbH v. Steve Gregory, WIPO Case No. D2000-0016, <allocation.com>et al., Denied
Asphalt Research Technology, Inc. v. National Press & Publishing, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1005, <ezstreet.net>, Denied
402 Shoes, Inc. dba Trashy Lingerie v. Jack Weinstock and Whispers Lingerie, WIPO Case No. D2000-1223, <trashylingerie.com>, Transfer with Concurring Opinion
Porto Chico Stores, Inc. v. Otavio Zambon, WIPO Case No. D2000-1270, <lovelygirls.com>, Denied
Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Center, Inc. v. Nett Corp., WIPO Case No. D2001-0031, <sweeps.com>, Denied
Classmates Online, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, individually and dba RaveClub Berlin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0635, <classmat.com>et al., Transfer
Gorstew Limited v. Worldwidewebsales.com, WIPO Case No. D2002-0744, <anguillabeaches.com>et al., Denied
Emmanuel Vincent Seal trading as Complete Sports Betting v. Ron Basset, WIPO Case No. D2002-1058, <completesportsbetting.com>, Transfer
Owens Corning Fiberglas Technology, Inc v. Hammerstone, WIPO Case No. D2003-0903, <cultured-stone.com>, Transfer
Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304, <mobilcom.com>, Transfer
Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964, <wcmh.com>, Transfer
Commune of Zermatt and Zermatt Tourismus v. Activelifestyle Travel Network, <zermatt.com>, WIPO Case No. D2007-1318, Denied
Terroni Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo, WIPO Case No. D2008-0666, <terroni.com>, Transfer
Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français v. RareNames, Inc., RareNames WebReg and RN WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2008-1849, <tgvcinema.com>et al., Transfer
St Andrews Links Ltd v. Refresh Design, WIPO Case No. D2009-0601, <theoldcourse.com>, Transfer
Gibson, LLC v. Jeanette Valencia, WIPO Case No. D2010-0490
, <moderncowgirls.com>, TransferB-Boy TV Ltd v. bboytv.com c/o Whois Privacy Service / Chief Rocka LTD, formerly named BreakStation LTD., WIPO Case No. D2012-2006, <bboytv.com>, Denied
Kariyer.net Elektronik Yayincilik ve Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S v. Yenibiris Insan Kaynaklari Hizmetleri Danismanlik ve Yayincilik A.S, WIPO Case No.D2012-2151