2,884 Cybersquatting cases covering 5,084 internet domain names in 2012 via WIPO with 91% proving Cybersquatting!

2,884 Cybersquatting cases covering 5,084 internet domain names in 2012 via WIPO with 91% proving Cybersquatting!

Eversheds LLP a global law practice just posted this article below on their website from there Ireland office about WIPO cases and Intellectual Property and why you must protect it they go into detail below about the case of Morgan Freeman the actor vs Mighty LLC, This case is 8 years old going back to 2005 a year before I was even involved in the domaining business.

What do you think of this case? Should Morgan Freeman have won MorganFreeman.com?

As the respondent originally replied – He isn’t the only Morgan Freeman – Here was the bad faith judgement from the panel at the time…

Here is the original WIPO Case from back in 2005

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

“Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

Respondent is using the domain name for its commercial benefit to lure Internet users to its website. Internet users entering the domain name of a celebrity expect to find a site offering goods or services associated with the celebrity’s trademark. Here they find a site that has no association with Complainant or his mark. The domain name is thus being used in bad faith.

Respondent owns in excess of 400 domain names including <jamesstewart.com>, <lizaminelli.com>, <denvernuggets.com>, <nyyankees.com> and <disneychannelgames.com>. This shows that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names to prevent the trademark owner from registering a domain name corresponding to his mark.

The fact that Respondent has taken Complainant’s very mark as its domain name also is evidence of bad faith. The name is obviously connected with Complainant. The use by Respondent, who has no connection with the Complainant, in connection with a website that has no connection with the Complainant suggests “opportunistic bad faith”.

The very fact that Respondent registered the domain name establishes bad faith use and registration.”

Intellectual property and domain name disputes – a case for ADR?

Ireland | General


Intellectual property (“IP”) rights are valuable business assets and can be licensed and/or assigned. Commercial transactions frequently involve cross-border parties and different national laws. The complex nature of such transactions often results in multi-jurisdictional disputes involving parties from different countries having different business, legal and cultural backgrounds, attitudes and expectations. This results in businesses turning to Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) procedures such as arbitration and mediation to resolve their disputes.

WIPO is the specialist UN agency for intellectual property. It was established by the WIPO convention on 26 April 1970. WIPO is at the forefront of IP ADR procedures. In 2012, trademark owners filed a record high 2,884 cybersquatting cases covering 5,084 internet domain names to be dealt with under procedures based on WIPO Arbitration and Mediation. Cybersquatting is where someone registers a domain name in bad faith usually with an intention to profit from a trademark belonging to someone else. Cybersquatters then offer to sell the domain name at an inflated price. Evidence of cybersquatting was found in 91% of WIPO panel cases in 2012, another record high.

In an intellectual property licence agreement, a WIPO contract clause or submission agreement must be entered into for the WIPO arbitration process to be invoked. This can allow for expert determination, mediation and/or arbitration and/or expedited arbitration. An expert determination will result in a final determination, mediation will result in a settlement and arbitration or expedited arbitration will result in an enforceable award. The amounts in dispute in WIPO mediations and arbitrations can be significant. They have varied from $20,000 US dollars to $700 million US dollars.

By way of example, the Morgan Freeman v. Mighty LLC case[1], is illustrative of the cybersquatting ADR procedure at WIPO.

This involved Morgan Freeman’s name which was used in a domain name and linked to an entertainment site, which apparently sold Viagra. Mr Freeman sent demand letters to the cybersquatter requiring the transfer of the domain name to him.

The domain name at issue was identical to Mr Freeman’s MORGAN FREEMAN trademark except for the “.com” suffix which was found not to be sufficient to serve as a distinguishing feature.

The panel found that Mr Freeman had strong common law trademark rights in MORGAN FREEMAN based on his extensive use of the name in connection with his career in the entertainment business for more than 40 years. While the name was not registered as a trademark, he was able to rely on common law rights in the name built up over a number of years.

The domain name was registered after Mr Freeman had established strong rights in his name and mark and there was no contractual relationship arising between the parties as regards a licence allowing the cybersquatter to use the name legitimately.

The panel agreed with Mr Freeman’s argument that the mark was so well known that it was not reasonably possible for the cybersquatter to demonstrate any legitimate interest in the domain name. The cybersquatter was held to have registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

We have seen an increase in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) disputes in WIPO.  This may be because the standard terms and conditions of registering one’s domain name include a binding ADR clause, allowing for WIPO to determine disputes.  There is no difficulty with enforcement of any Order, because the domain name at issue is merely transferred at the conclusion of the dispute resolution process.  While we may also see increases in licensing and contractual IP disputes being dealt with through the WIPO arbitration service, it remains to be seen whether it can go beyond that. Specialist national courts well versed in IP disputes, like our own Commercial Court, are still likely to be the preferred option for infringement and other IP disputes, given the requirement for both parties to agree to arbitration.

[1] WIP Case No. D2005-0263

For more information contact

Kate Colleary
Senior Associate
+353 1 6644 321
Visit Kate Colleary profile

About the Author

Robbie Ferguson is an Internet Entrepreneur, Domain Investor, Domain Broker, Blogger and founder of various websites and eCommerce businesses such as ScreenProtectors.co.uk

2 Comments on "2,884 Cybersquatting cases covering 5,084 internet domain names in 2012 via WIPO with 91% proving Cybersquatting!"

  1. why do you call them cybersquatting cases?

Leave a Reply

Read previous post:
How To Make Your Website or Blog SEO Friendly

How To Make Your Website or Blog SEO Friendly As most people know I have been building my own ecommerce...