The UDRP Blog™

In a classic typosquatting case involving inversion of letters, the Panel in Costco Wholesale Membership Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Markus Tamn , WIPO Case No. D2018-2523 (Pablo A. Palazzi, December 20, 2018), transferred the domain costoc.com to the well-known warehousing giant Costco. The entire process from filing the Complaint to the date of decision was 45 days, or roughly the equivalent of hours I spend per year standing in line at Costco. The Panel first confirmed that the disputed domain was confusingly similar to a trademark owned by Complainant, noting that "[t]he inversion of the letters 'c' and 'o' in the Disputed Domain Name represents a misspelling that does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant's trademark." Next examining whether Respondent held any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain, the Panel found no such rights or interests. More specifica...

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...

In Greenvelope, LLC v. Virtual Services Corp. , Wipo Case No. D2017-0006 (Christopher Gibson, February 25, 2017), the Panel denied Greenvelope’s Complaint requesting transfer of greenenvelope.com, despite Greenvelope’s ownership of the federally registered trademark GREENVELOPE and the fact that the Respondent entered no response to the Complaint. As a reminder, to prevail in a UDRP dispute, a complainant must demonstrate three elements: The domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and The respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Examining each of these factors in turn, the Panel first concluded that Complainant’s trademark, GREENVELOPE is confusingly similar to the domain greenenvelope.com, as Complainant’s mark “evokes the terms ‘green’ and ‘envelope,’” despite ...

One of two Wagamama® noodle house locations in Boston. Bet my friends in the UK love this place too. In Wagamama Limited v. Park Hae Dong, Hae Dong Limited , WIPO Case No. D2008-0301 (Ross Wilson, May 6, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of wgamama.com to the Complainant owner the WAGAMAMA trademark. The Panel first reaffirmed several other decisions in holding that a domain name that omits a letter of another's trademark is confusingly similar for purposes of the UDRP: "The Respondent’s disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s mark by simply one letter. In the disputed domain name the first 'a' is omitted. The Panel finds that the Respondent is obviously engaging in deliberately misspelling a known trademark - a practice commonly known as 'typosquatting'. The practice has been condemned by many panels and found to be confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic." Because the Respondent used the domain in connection with a website of...