Westmore · UDRP DecisionMoteplasen.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <moteplasen.com>, finding it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MÖTESPLATSEN and MOTESPLATSEN.SE marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel found that the domain omitted two letters from the Complainant’s mark and was used to divert users for commercial gain through advertising associated with competing services. Prior typosquatting decisions involving the Respondent were treated as further evidence of bad faith.
The timeline behind moteplasen.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 moteplasen.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision is a direct example of omission-based typosquatting combined with commercial advertising linked to a complainant’s competitors. The finding was reinforced by trademark rights predating registration, longstanding use of the correctly spelled national domain, respondent default, and prior UDRP decisions showing a broader pattern of brand-targeting registrations.
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 Mötesplatsen I Norden AB v. Above.Com Pty Ltd. / Ready Asset, Nish Patel Case No. D2014-0161 1. The Parties Complainant is Mötesplatsen I Norden AB of Varberg, Sweden, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden. Respondent is Above.Com Pty Ltd. of Beaumaris, Victoria, Australia/ Ready Asset, Nish Patel of Xiamen, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <moteplasen.com> is registered with Above.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 3, 2014. On February 3, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 6, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 6, 2014, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 6, 2014. The Center verified that Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 7, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 27, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 28, 2014. The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 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 Complainant owns two registered trademarks in Sweden: Registration No. 0381707 for MOTESPLATSEN.SE in Classes 38 and 45, with a registration date of June 22, 2006, and Registration No. 0411357 for MÖTESPLATSEN in Classes 38 and 45, with a registration date of June 4, 2010. Complainant has also owned and used the Internet domain name <motesplatsen.se> since 2001. Complainant is a Swedish limited liability company active the matchmaking business. The website at “www.motesplatsen.se” is one of the largest online dating sites in Sweden. Between December 2013 and January 2014, <motesplatsen.se> had 2,643,004 visits and 55,154,349 page views. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 4, 2012, without Complainant’s authorization. The disputed domain name expires on April 4, 2014. Complainant states that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to provide sponsored links to competitor services and pages related to Complainant’s field of online dating and matchmaking. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <moteplasen.com> is confusingly similar, if not virtually identical to Complainant’s MÖTESPLATSEN and MOTESPLATSEN.SE marks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, and use as set forth above, constitutes bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Respondent has defaulted. Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that the Panel may draw such inferences from a default as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel infers from Respondent’s silence that Complainant’s allegations are, in fact, correct. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <moteplasen.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MÖTESPLATSEN and MOTESPLATSEN.SE marks. Respondent has simply removed two letters (the first “s” and second “t”) from Complainant’s MÖTESPLATSEN mark in an attempt to take advantage of consumers attempting to find, access or use the domain name <motesplatsen.se> who mistype that domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no connection between Respondent and the term “moteplasen”. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name <moteplasen.com> 6 years after Complainant’s first cited trademark registration and Respondent’s diversion and misdirection of Internet users to its website in order to profit from the sale of advertising space to Complainant’s competitors constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Respondent intentionally and deliberately targeted Complainant’s trademark, and its associated goodwill, for commercial gain by confusing Internet users into believing that Respondent’s website is affiliated with, sponsored, or endorsed by Complainant (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)). Moreover, the Panel is aware that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of typosquatting on known brands beyond Complainant’s, including LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Nish Patel (Ready Asset) , WIPO Case No. D2013-0261 , <legoh.com>, Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Nish Patel/Above.com Domain Privacy , WIPO Case No. D2013-1127 , <michelinrouteplanner.com>, LEGO Juris A/S v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Ready Asset, Nish Patel , WIPO Case No. D2013-0114 , <wwwlegofriends.com> and Atos IT Services UK Limited v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Nish Patel , WIPO Case D2013-0655, <redspottedhankie.com>. The Panel considers this further evidence of bad faith registration and use. 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 <moteplasen.com> be transferred to Complainant. Sally M. Abel Sole Panelist Date: March 26, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around moteplasen.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.