Westmore · UDRP decision
CAC · Case No. CAC-UDRP-105247

Corelle-home.com

TransferCAC-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <corelle-home.com>, finding it confusingly similar to the CORELLE mark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain to a competing dinnerware store.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
CAC
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2023-04-17
Panelist(s)
Luca Barbero
Complainant
Instant Brands LLC
Respondent
Denice Duo
Law firm
Stobbs IP Ltd
Disputed domain(s)
corelle-home.com
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind corelle-home.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind corelle-home.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of corelle-home.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

The Panel found that the Respondent likely registered the domain with the CORELLE mark in mind because the mark had been used previously for dinnerware, the added term “home” referred to the Complainant’s field, and the domain was used to sell dinnerware. The competing online store lacked a non-affiliation disclaimer and intentionally attracted users for commercial gain by creating confusion under paragraph 4(b)(iv).

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarMet
Rights or legitimate interestsMet
Registered and used in bad faithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case details
Provider
CAC
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2023-04-17
Panel
Luca Barbero
Full decision
6 min read · hosted by Westmore

Case number CAC-UDRP-105247 Time of filing 2023-03-02 11:03:19 Domain names corelle-home.com Case administrator Name Olga Slanařová (Case admin) Complainant Organization Instant Brands LLC Complainant representative Organization Stobbs IP Ltd Respondent Name Denice Duo Other Legal Proceedings The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name. Identification Of Rights The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership, amongst others, of the following trademark registration: - Canada trademark registration No. TMA167153 for CORELLE (word mark), filed on January 14, 1969 and registered on January 2, 1970, for “glass tableware” in international class 21. Factual Background The Complainant Instant Brands Inc. is a company selling a range of kitchen appliances founded in 2009. In 2019, the Complainant entered into a merger agreement with Corelle Brands LLC, which has been using the trademark CORELLE in relation to dinnerware and related goods since 1970. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <corelle.com>, which was registered on October 6, 1997 and has been used since 2000 to promote dinnerware and related products under the trademark CORELLE. The disputed domain name <corelle-home.com> was registered on March 24, 2022 and resolves to an active website which advertises and offers for sale dinnerware. Parties Contentions COMPLAINANT The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <corelle-home.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark CORELLE. With reference to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, since the Respondent is advertising and selling counterfeit goods by impersonating the Complainant. The Complainant further states that the Respondent has never legitimately been known by the name CORELLE at any point in time. With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant submits that, considering the wide reputation of the Complainant’s trademark CORELLE and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name having knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's registered trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent intended to drive traffic to its website in order to impersonate/pass off as the Complainant to sell counterfeit products, and that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is also disrupting the Complainant’s business. RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has been filed. Rights The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). No Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). Bad Faith The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. Principal Reasons for the Decision 1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CORELLE as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the descriptive term “home” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, which can be disregarded for the purpose of assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 2. With reference to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case and that the Respondent, by not submitting a Response, has failed to provide any element from which a Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name could be inferred. The Panel notes that, based on the records submitted to the Panel, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register and use its trademark CORELLE. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name. Based on the documents and statements submitted by the Complainant and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, clearly confusingly similar with the Complainant’s prior trademark CORELLE, in connection with a website offering for sale dinnerware products, i.e. the same products for which the Complainant’s trademark is registered and used, does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is, and has been, clearly commercial in nature, as the Respondent has clearly aimed at gaining revenues from its online store, selling products competing with the ones offered by the Complainant. 3. As to bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the prior use of the Complainant’s trademark CORELLE in connection with the promotion and sales of the Complainant’s dinnerware and related goods online through the Complainant’s website “www.corelle.com” and considering that the disputed domain name combines the Complainant’s trademark with the descriptive term “home”, which directly refers to the Complainant’s field of activity, the Respondent very likely registered the disputed domain name having the Complainant’s trademark in mind. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer dinnerware for sale on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves further supports the finding that the Respondent indeed intended to target the Complainant and its trademark. The Panel also finds that, in view of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with an online store offering for sale dinnerware products competing with the ones offered by the Complainant under the trademark CORELLE without displaying any disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and the products advertised therein according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be corelle-home.com: Transferred PANELLISTS Name Luca Barbero Date of Panel Decision 2023-04-17 Publish the Decision

Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around corelle-home.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
116,088 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on CAC-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions, backed by WHOIS, UDRP and domain-sales intelligence.

or
Buyer-side only Escrow-protected NDA on request
Services
Research
UDRP
Widgets
Westmore
Support
Know everything about a domain
Owner, history, status and risk in one search

Copyright © 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

Start a confidential acquisition →

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.