The UDRP Blog™

In Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Calvin Klein, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico , WIPO Case No. D2018-2882 (James Bridgeman, January 27, 2019), the Panel transferred calivnklein.com to the owner of the famous CALVIN KLEIN trademark. If you just read the previous sentence and thought this was a straight up cybersquatter case, where the infringer registers a domain name corresponding with the exact trademark of a brand owner, look at the disputed domain again closely-- it is actually a classic example of typosquatting, whereby infringers capture domain traffic where an Internet user is seeking a particular brand owner but mistakenly mistypes the web address of such brand owner. This case is also a perfect example of how quickly an infringing domain can be recovered via a UDRP action filed with WIPO. In this instance, the infringer registered the disputed domain on December 10, 2018, Complainant filed its com...

In Audi AG v. DNS Administrator, Cykon Technology Limited , WIPO Case No. D2017-1012 (William R. Towns, July 14, 2017), the Panel ordered the transfer of xaudi.com to the owner and maker of AUDI branded vehicles. The case involved a domain that Respondent owned since 2008, and despite Respondent's defense, the Panel nevertheless ordered the transfer in what turned out to be a pretty clear cut case. In making its determination, the Panel considered the three factors necessary for a complainant to prevail in a UDRP claim. First, the Panel determined that xaudi.com is confusingly similar to the AUDI mark owned by Complainant, noting that the "inclusion of the preceding letter 'x' does not serve to dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the distinctive and well-known AUDI mark." Turning to the second factor, whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, the Panel emphasized that Respondent "has us...

One of a number of Golden Door Spa locations In a throwback to the early days of UDRP decisions, the Panel in Golden Door Licensor , L.L.C. v. Protected, WhoisGuard /Chen Bao Shui , WIPO Case No. D2008-0352 (Arne Ringnes , May 13, 2008) required the transfer of goldendoorspa .com to the owner of the GOLDEN DOOR SPA trademark. In most ways, the case was typical-- the domain name was being used in connection with sponsored links to the Complainant's competitors, the Respondent was a serial cybersquatter that had lost a number of UDRP decisions before WIPO , and the Respondent entered no appearance to defend himself. The decision to transfer was about as easy as they come. But what was not so typical, at least anymore, was the fact that the domain name at issue was identical (except for ".com") to the Complainant's well-known trademark. In the early years of the UDRP , say around 2001-2002, most WIPO decisions involved what I call "traditional" cybersqua...

Don't Mess With Texas!!!!....unless you are dealing with Texas International Property Associates. In a case where you knew the result upon seeing the Respondent's name, Messe Frankfurt GmbH v. Texas International Property Associates , WIPO Case No. D2008-0375 (Clive L. Elliott, April 29, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of messefrankfurtusa .com to the owner of the MESSE FRANKFURT mark. The case was no contest, as the Respondent notorious cybersquatter begged for mercy from the Panel by offering to voluntarily transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. When a Respondent consents to a transfer, a Panel has two options: "The Panel may find that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has unequivocally consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, it should forgo the traditional UDRP analysis and order the immediate transfer of the domain name. The Panel may alternately find that the efficacy of such consent notwithstanding, there may nev...