Ipr Wipo Dispute Resolution Case Studies
1. panavision.com Case – WIPO Arbitration (1998)
Jurisdiction: WIPO (UDRP – Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy)
Type of IPR: Domain Name / Trademark
Facts:
The domain panavision.com was registered by an individual who had no connection to the company Panavision Inc., a major camera manufacturer.
Panavision Inc. demanded the domain transfer, claiming cybersquatting.
Legal Issue:
Did the registrant have rights or legitimate interests in the domain?
Was the domain registered in bad faith to profit from Panavision’s reputation?
Decision:
WIPO panel ruled in favor of Panavision.
Reasoning: The registrant had no legitimate interest in the name, and the registration was clearly bad faith.
Legislative/Practical Impact:
Set precedent for UDRP cases involving well-known trademarks.
Strengthened protections against cybersquatting.
2. sex.com Case – WIPO Domain Dispute (2006)
Jurisdiction: WIPO Arbitration
Type of IPR: Domain Name / Trademark
Facts:
The domain sex.com was registered and sold without the owner’s authorization.
Plaintiff (Escom LLC) claimed unauthorized control and bad faith registration.
Legal Issue:
Can a domain name that is highly generic but tied to business interest be reclaimed under WIPO rules?
Decision:
WIPO ruled for Escom LLC, ordering transfer of the domain.
Reasoning: Registrant acted in bad faith, exploiting the domain for financial gain without rights.
Impact:
Highlighted that even generic but commercially valuable domains are protected under UDRP if bad faith exists.
3. Google Inc. v. “googIe.com” – WIPO Arbitration (2005)
Jurisdiction: WIPO (UDRP)
Type of IPR: Trademark / Domain Name
Facts:
The domain googIe.com (capital i resembling lowercase L) was registered by an unrelated party.
Google claimed confusion with its trademark.
Legal Issue:
Is typo-squatting considered bad faith under UDRP?
Decision:
WIPO panel ordered the domain transferred to Google.
Reasoning: Domain intended to profit from Google’s reputation, constituting clear bad faith.
Impact:
Strengthened enforcement against typo-squatting.
Encouraged large companies to proactively monitor similar domains.
4. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Ms. Li & Alibaba (2009)
Jurisdiction: WIPO / China-related dispute
Type of IPR: Trademark & Counterfeit Goods Online
Facts:
Louis Vuitton sued an individual and an online marketplace for selling counterfeit products under its brand.
Case brought under WIPO mediation for cross-border IP disputes.
Legal Issue:
Can WIPO mediation resolve cross-border online IP infringement involving trademarks?
Decision:
WIPO panel successfully mediated a settlement, including the removal of infringing listings and acknowledgment of trademark rights.
Impact:
Showed WIPO’s flexibility in resolving cross-border online infringement.
Encouraged private settlement and compliance rather than prolonged litigation.
5. Red Bull v. Bull Energy Drink (2000)
Jurisdiction: WIPO Arbitration
Type of IPR: Trademark
Facts:
The domain bullenergy.com was registered by a competitor.
Red Bull claimed brand confusion and bad faith.
Legal Issue:
Whether domain registration infringed Red Bull’s trademark.
Was registration intended to profit from brand reputation?
Decision:
WIPO ruled in favor of Red Bull.
Domain was transferred to Red Bull.
The panel found clear intention to exploit brand equity, violating UDRP rules.
Impact:
Reinforced brand protection for globally recognized trademarks under WIPO UDRP.
6. Playboy Enterprises v. Asia.com (2002)
Jurisdiction: WIPO Arbitration
Type of IPR: Trademark / Domain Name
Facts:
The domain playboyasia.com was registered by a third party.
Playboy Enterprises claimed unauthorized use of trademark and potential consumer confusion.
Legal Issue:
Is domain registration in a different region but using a famous brand infringement under UDRP?
Decision:
Domain was transferred to Playboy Enterprises.
Panel emphasized famous marks enjoy protection internationally, even if registrant is overseas.
Impact:
Set precedent for international brand protection through WIPO arbitration.
Strengthened global enforcement mechanisms for famous trademarks.
Key Takeaways Across WIPO Dispute Cases:
UDRP is effective for domain disputes involving trademark infringement or bad faith.
Bad faith registration is the main determinant for domain transfer.
WIPO arbitration and mediation prevent lengthy litigation, especially for cross-border disputes.
Famous and well-known marks receive stronger protection, even for domains registered overseas.
WIPO provides an internationally recognized legal framework for resolving IP disputes efficiently.
RELATED Blog
comments