Westmore · UDRP DecisionCam4hot.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <cam4hot.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CAM4 trademark because it combined the mark with the generic term “hot,” found no rights or legitimate interests after the Respondent failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the domain’s use for a competing service intended to attract users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind cam4hot.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 cam4hot.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward mark-plus-term case in which the added word reinforced the association with the complainant’s field rather than distinguishing the domain. The competing use, later domain creation, and unrebutted prima facie case enabled the Panel to find all three UDRP elements satisfied.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Surecom Corporation NV v. PUP, Jonathan Dela Cruz/Whoisguard Protected Case No. D2013-1980 1. The Parties The Complainant is Surecom Corporation NV of Willemstad, Curacao, Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Eidsness Law Offices, United States of America. The Respondent is PUP, Jonathan Dela Cruz of Bataan, Philippines, and Whoisguard Protected of Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cam4hot.com> is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2013. On November 21, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 22, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 28, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 18, 2013. On December 18, 2013, the Respondent PUP/Jonathan Dela Cruz submitted an informal email communication to the Center. The Respondent did not submit any formal response within the specific response due date. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent the commencement of panel appointment on December 19, 2013. The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is the proprietor of the trademark CAM4, registered inter alia as a Community Trade Mark No. 10053701filed on June 16, 2011 and registered on November 16, 2011.. The disputed domain name was created on August 20, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant operates an adult webcam site under the domain name <cam4.com>, a service for which the trademark CAM4 is used. The website, launched in June 2007, is the 247th most popular website in the world. By the year 2012, over a billion unique visitors had visited the website. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CAM4, because it merely adds the generic word “hot”, associated with the Complainant’s services, to the trademark. The Respondent has no trademark rights and is not known by the disputed domain name and there is no evidence that the Respondent was using or planning to use the disputed domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the <cam4.com> domain owned by the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Internet users are very likely to be confused, mistaken or deceived into erroneously believing that Respondent’s website is authorized, sponsored, licensed or endorsed by or otherwise associated with the Complainant, when in fact it is not. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark CAM4, and the suffix “hot”. The word “hot” is a generic English word often used in connection with adult entertainment services. The addition of such a generic suffix is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity with the Complainants trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The consensus view among UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or interests. See, e.g. , Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”). The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by asserting that it has not authorized the use of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by that name. The Respondent has chosen not to reply to these contentions. Therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and uses it for providing a service competing with the Complainant’s service. The Panel finds that the Respondent was, or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the <cam4.com> domain name owned by the Complainant and the CAM4 trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <cam4hot.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Tuukka Airaksinen Sole Panelist Date: January 20, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around cam4hot.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.