Resources

Stay in the know and learn how to make the most with your domains.

Sample UDRP decisions

Below are samples of UDRP decisions to serve as references.

DATELINENBC.com

  • NBC Universal Inc. v. Szk.com / Michele Dinoia, WIPO Case No. D2007-0077 (March 15, 2007)
    • Identical or Confusingly Similar element:
    • The Panel found that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates two marks in which the Complainant has rights (DATELINE and NBC). The combined association of those two marks, makes it clear that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to either or both of those marks. Because those two marks would naturally be associated with each other, the use of both in the disputed domain name only increases the risk of confusion.

BLACKBERRYGURU.com

  • Research in Motion Limited v. Zag Media Corp., WIPO Case No. D2008-0848 (October 22, 2008)
    • Rights or Legitimate Interest element
    • Numerous UDRP decisions support Respondent’s position that the use of a domain name containing a descriptive expression for genuinely descriptive purposes may be permitted under the Policy.  As long as the domain names have been registered because of their attraction as dictionary words and not because of their value as trademarks, this is a business model that is permitted under the Policy.  However, in this case though there was reference to other types of fruit, the Panel found that the Respondent’s domain is likely Complainant’s BLACKBERRY mark because there was no reference to blackberries, blackberry jam, blackberry plants, or any such generic use of the word blackberry.

RALEIGHBIKES.com

  • Swissbike Vertriebs GmbH v. Executive Standard Limited, WIPO Case No. D2008-0498 (June 19, 2008)
    • Rights or Legitimate Interest element
    • The Respondent has been using the Domain Name to connect it to a forum website intended for use by fans of the Complainant’s Raleigh bicycles to discuss issues and provide information relating to those bicycles. The Respondent contends, and the Panel agreed, that the site is a non-commercial site and there is nothing of any substance to indicate otherwise.

SIERRAHOTELGROUP.com

  • Lodgeworks, L.P. v. Sierra Hospitality, NAF Forum File No. 1152964 (April 21, 2008)
    • Bad Faith element:
    • The Panel ruled in favor of Sierra Hospitality, the owner of the domain names sierrahotelgroup.com and sierra-hotels.net, despite evidence that it made unsolicited offers to sell the domains to Lodgeworks, (“Complainant”).  The Complainant claimed that the domains at issue were confusingly similar to its trademark “Sierra Suites” and its domain, sierrasuites.com.  The Panel ruled that merely making an unsolicited offer to sell a domain name is insufficient to amount to bad faith under the UDRP.  An unsolicited offer only constitutes bad faith if the domain is registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the owner of a trademark for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket expenses

AVG.com

  • Grisoft, s.r.o. v. Original Web Ventures Inc, WIPO Case No. D2006-1381 (March 5, 2007)
    • Bad Faith Element:
    • “In the view of the majority of the Panel, an intention to use the domain name, even for a limited period, in a way which would enable the registrant to profit from diversion of internet users through confusion with a corresponding mark constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.  Accordingly, the majority of the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith as well as being used in bad faith, and that the third requirement of the Policy is satisfied.”

CLASSICMEDIA.com

  • Classic Media, Inc v. Satoshi Shimoshita, WIPO Case No. D2007-0086 (March 22, 2007)
    • Bad Faith element:
    • The Panel held if a domain name was registered in good faith, it cannot, by changed circumstances, the passage of years, or intervening events, later be deemed to have been registered in bad faith.  “It cannot be assumed that any willingness of the Respondent now to sell the Domain Name reflects its original intent in registering it, at any rate where the registration took place some six years ago and the Domain Name is descriptive and the Respondent may have had no reason to suppose that it might be the mark of a company.”

Back to Domain Law