The UDRP Blog™

In LEGO Juris A/S v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico , WIPO Case No. D2019-0248 (Shwetasree Majumder, April 16, 2019), LEGO, one of the most active complainants in UDRP cases filed at WIPO, sought to recover the domain wwwthelegostore.com from a purported typosquatter. A domain leading with "www" is designed to capture the attention of Internet users who are trying to seek a particular website, but mistakenly omit the period after the "www" portion of the web address. Such domain registrations constitute "typosquatting," a form of domain infringement designed to capture "typing" mistakes by Internet users. In this case, Respondent failed to enter an appearance to defend itself from the claims of typosquatting, but under WIPO's guidelines, judgment by default is not simply entered in favor of a complainant. Rather, "Complainant must still establish each of the three el...

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 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 Steven Madden, Ltd. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. , WIPO Case No. D2018-2474 (Jane Seager, December 24, 2018), the Panel transferred the domain stevenmadden.com to the famous footwear, apparel, and accessories brand known as Steve Madden. Respondent, a Chinese individual, did not respond to the Complaint. Turning to the first of the three elements of a UDRP claim, the Panel found that the disputed domain was confusingly similar to trademarks owned by the Complainant. Interestingly, despite its corporate name Steven Madden, Ltd., Complainant apparently does not own any STEVEN MADDEN trademarks, but does own several registration for STEVE MADDEN and also a registration for STEVEN BY STEVE MADDEN. The Panel found that the disputed domain was confusingly similar to both of these marks, emphasizing that “'Steven' is an obvious variation on the spelling of the name 'Steve', which forms part of the Complainant’s [STEVE MADDEN] trademark." Continuing, the Pa...

In a straightforward, old-fashioned typosquatting dispute, Costco Wholesale Membership Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Vladimir Snezko , WIPO Case No. D2017-2405 (Andrea Jaeger-Lenz, February 2, 2018), the Panel ordered transfer of the domain costoco.com to the wholesale company Costco. Respondent, which had held the disputed domain since 2000, did not respond to the UDRP complaint. Starting with the first of the three factors necessary for a complainant to prevail in a UDRP dispute, namely, whether the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark, the Panel noted that "[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." The Panel found that that minor differences between the disputed domain and Complainant's COSTCO trademark did not obviate the visual and phonetic similarities between them, and thus fo...

In Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation v. L. Roman T. Sorrells, PARI’ZA Studios , WIPO Case No. D2017-0128 (John C. McElwaine, March 31, 2017), the Panel ordered the transfer of hersheykyss.com to Complainant owner of the famous chocolate brand KISSES. This was actually a case I worked on when I had the privilege of serving as President and Counsel to Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation. I learned of this infringing domain name through a domain watch I had ordered to monitor domain names that potentially infringe on the HERSHEY'S and KISSES trademarks. We offer this type of domain watching service at my new firm, Alprin Law Offices , and I highly recommend it for anyone concerned about cybersquatting and/or typosquatting. A domain watch is an inexpensive way to monitor and protect one's valuable intellectual property from being infringed, which in the case of hersheykyss.com involved the association of famous trademarks to unsavory sexual content...

Where the powers that be at Dayton Daily News determined to spend some subscription fees and go after a typosquatter In Cox Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a Dayton Daily News v. PabloPalermao , WIPO Case No. D2008-0372 (Joan Clark, May 19, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of daytondailynew .com to the owner of the registered trademark DAYTON DAILY NEWS. In finding the Respondent's domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark, the Panel made clear that the mere deletion of a letter from the Complainant's mark did not obviate confusing similarity: "The removal of the letter 's' is so minor, at the very end of the principal part of the domain name, that it would not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name." In discussing bad faith, the Panel emphasized that the omission of a letter from the Complainant's trademark evidenced the Respondent's bad faith: "The choice of the...

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...

A fancy room at the Sofitel Berlin Schweizerhof Ever try to book a hotel for an INTA annual meeting in the last weeks leading up to the meeting? Yeah, you feel me, right? No way you are scoring a room at a fancy hotel, and if you do find such a room, you are paying the equivalent of several Thomson search reports to get it. Thus, in the spirit of the upcoming INTA annual meeting, I couldn't resist the following case. In ACCOR v. Vista Holdings, Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2008-0291 (Dietrich Beier, April 21, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of accorhoteels.com to the hotel chain owner of the ACCOR mark. The Panel swiftly concluded that accorhoteels.com was confusingly similar to the Complainant's ACCOR mark, that the failed-to-Respond(ent) had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain, and that the disputed domain was registered and used in bad faith. This case was one of those complete knock-outs that you just love to read as a trademark attorney. While the facts, reaso...

In Forever 21 v. Matthias Moench , WIPO Case No. D2008-0258 (J. Nelson Landry, April 16, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of foever.com. The Complainant owned the registered mark FOREVER 21, and the Panel was readily satisfied that the omission of the first "r" in FOREVER within the disputed domain evidenced actionable typosquatting. This conclusion was bolstered by the fact that the Respondent used the disputed domain in connection with a website containing a link farm, and had been on the losing end of four prior UDRP decisions. In reaching its decision, the Panel addressed two "potential" defenses. I say "potential" because these defenses would have had a better chance of success if the Respondent filed an argumentative response. As in the majority of UDRP cases, however, the Respondent defaulted and suffered the consequences of such default. The first potential defense related to the scope of the Complainant's trademark rights and the Respond...

In Georgia Power Company, the Southern Company v. Wang Congming , WIPO Case No. D2008-0234 (David Taylor, April 16, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of gerogiapower.com to the Complainant. Aside from the addition of the top level domain (.com) and the inversion of the "o" and "r" in "Georgia," the domain name was identical to the Complainant's registered GEORGIA POWER trademark. The case is a classic example of typosquatting, where domain profiteers seek to capture on typing mistakes made by Internet surfers seeking a particular website. In this case, the Panel found that "[t]he misspelling of the GEORGIA POWER mark in the domain name is with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination and direct them to the Respondent’s website." This conclusion was easy for the Panel, as "[t]he website under the disputed domain name contains links to 'Georgia Power', 'Georgia Power New Service', 'O...