Westmore · UDRP DecisionWalmartsuperstores.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <walmartsuperstores.com> after finding that the domain was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WALMART marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain had been registered and used in bad faith. The Panel relied on the addition of the descriptive term “superstores,” the absence of authorization or evidence of bona fide activity, the domain’s original use for a commercial-goods website, its later passive holding, and the Respondent’s offer to sell it to the Complainant for USD 1,500.
The timeline behind walmartsuperstores.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 walmartsuperstores.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a cumulative bad-faith analysis involving a famous mark, a retail-related descriptive addition, initial commercial use, later passive holding, and a sale demand above registration cost. It also shows that a change from active use to inactivity will not necessarily cure prior targeting or prevent a finding of continuing bad faith.
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 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DomainsbyProxy.com, Inc. Case No. D2014-1695 1. The Parties The Complainant is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. of Bentonville, Arkansas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is DomainsbyProxy.com, Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <walmartsuperstores.com> is registered with Name106, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 29, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 2014, 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 October 9, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 29, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 31, 2014. The Center appointed William F Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on November 20, 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 owns the WALMART mark and many domain names that incorporate the WALMARK mark, including but not limited to <walmart.com>, <walmartsuperstore.com>, and <walmartsupercenter.com>. The Complainant opened the first WALMART branded store in 1962 and has since expanded its business operations to become a world recognized retailer. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations throughout the world, including United States registrations for the marks WAL-MART, WAL*MART, and WALMART.COM (collectively, the “Marks”), the first of which was registered in 1985. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 28, 2014. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered Marks because the disputed domain is composed of the Complainant’s mark plus a generic suffix. Additionally, the Complainant contends the Respondent was never authorized by the Respondent to use the Respondent’s Marks or the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and continues to use the mark in bad faith. In response to a cease and desist letter dated August 25, 2014, the Respondent in email exchanges of August 26 and 27, 2014 indicated that the disputed domain name was for sale and demanded USD1,500 in exchange for it. 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 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks. Domain name jurisprudence long ago established that domain names composed of registered and well-known marks and generic suffixes or prefixes are confusingly similar. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Terry Davies, WIPO Case No. D2006-0031 . The Respondent merely added the word “superstores” to the Complainant’s registered and well-know Marks. The Panel finds that disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant specifically asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s Marks or the disputed domain name. It appears that the Respondent has not conducted any bone fide business under the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to come forth with any evidence of legitimate business activity utilizing the Marks or the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel determines that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge the Complainant’s Marks. The Complainant is the largest employer in the United States . Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Terry Davies, WIPO Case No. D2006-0031 . The disputed domain name originally resolved to a site selling commercial goods. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered to lure to the Respondent’s website unsuspecting Internet shoppers who had intended to visit a site owned and operated by the Complainant. The fact that the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website is of no significance. The Respondent’s continued registration of the disputed domain name deprives the Complainant of the ability to register and use the disputed domain name to further its legitimate business interests. Moreover, the Complainant must not be compelled to wait for the Respondent to deploy the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s disadvantage. The passive owning of the disputed domain name is actual evidence of the Respondent’s continued bad faith. Finally, the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for a price greater than the registration cost is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel concludes 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 <walmartsuperstores.com> be transferred to the Complainant. William F Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: December 2, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around walmartsuperstores.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.