Westmore · UDRP DecisionWikipedica.org + 4 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of five misspellings of WIKIPEDIA. It found the domains confusingly similar and characterized them as typosquatting; found that the Complainant established a prima facie absence of rights or legitimate interests that the defaulting Respondent did not rebut; and found bad-faith registration and use based on the fame and distinctiveness of WIKIPEDIA, the Respondent's actual or constructive awareness of the mark, and use of the domains to attract Internet users for commercial gain through confusion. The Panel also stated that the circumstances would support bad-faith use even in the absence of active use.
The timeline behind wikipedica.org
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 wikipedica.org — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The case is a clear example of a multi-domain typosquatting complaint involving several small spelling variations of a single well-known mark. It also illustrates how a panel may combine the mark's reputation, deliberate typographical variations, website evidence of commercial attraction, respondent default, and identity-concealment circumstances when finding bad-faith registration and use.
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 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Ryan G Foo / Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois, Att: wikipedica.org, wikipediya.org, wikipeia.org, wikipidia.org, and wikipipedia.org Case No. D2015-0882 1. The Parties The Complainant is Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented The Respondent is Ryan G Foo of Belize City, Belize / Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois, Att: wikipedica.org, wikipediya.org, wikipeia.org, wikipidia.org, and wikipipedia.org of Panama. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <wikipedica.org>, <wikipediya.org>, <wikipeia.org>, <wikipidia.org> and <wikipipedia.org> are registered with Internet.bs Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 25, 2015. On May 26, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 2, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Ryan G Foo is the registrant. 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 June 17, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 7, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 8, 2015. The Center appointed Miguel B. O’Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 2015. 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, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual and educational content, which was founded in 2003 and now manages eleven free projects built and maintained by a large community of volunteers. The first and foremost project is Wikipedia, a free, online encyclopedia compiled, edited and maintained by over 70,000 active contributors. It is one of the most comprehensive and widely used reference ever compiled. The Complainant owns a trademark Registration No. 3,040,722 WIKIPEDIA granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 10, 2006 for “Providing information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet” in class 41. The registration certificate indicates first use of the mark in January 2001. In subsequent years the Complainant has registered a number of other marks that incorporate the WIKIPEDIA mark. In addition, the Complainant owns several International Registrations for the trademark WIKIPEDIA. The Complainant owns the domain name <wikipedia.org> registered on January 13, 2001. The disputed domain names are the following: <wikipeia.org> registered July 28, 2004 <wikipediya.org> registered January 3, 2005 <wikipidia.org> registered October 8, 2005 <wikipedica.org> registered May 29, 2006 <wikipipedia.org> registered July 20, 2006 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends, basically, the following: That the WIKIPEDIA marks in which the Complainant has rights are extremely well known in the United States and throughout the world. The disputed domain names are nearly identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, which have been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. Therefore, the Complainant requests the Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For the Complaint to succeed in this proceeding, under paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, it must prove that; (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain names <wikipedica.org>, <wikipediya.org> and <wikipipedia.org> contain the Complainant’s trademark WIKIPEDIA with the mere addition of the letters “c”, “y” and “pi”, respectively. In turn, the disputed domain names <wikipeia.org> and <wikipidia.org> are the result of deleting the letter “d” and replacing the middle letter “e” for an “i” in the WIKIPEDIA mark. The Panel considers that above-mentioned differences are totally insufficient to effectively distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s famous trademark WIKIPEDIA and avoid confusion for Internet users. Furthermore, the Panel considers that this is a case of “typo-squatting” ( i.e .,: of purposely misspelling the Complainant’s trademark to create confusion for the users of Internet). Therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The second element that the Complainant must prove pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Policy in paragraph 4(a) sets out various ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Although the Policy states that the complainant must prove each of the elements in paragraph 4(a), it is often observed that it is difficult for a complainant to prove a negative, i.e ., that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. It has therefore become generally accepted under the Policy that, once a complainant has presented a prima facie showing of a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of submitting evidence therefore shifts to the respondent. The respondent must then produce evidence to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in order to refute the prima facie case. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and so the burden of production of evidence has effectively been shifted to the Respondent, who did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, has not made such showing. None of the circumstances provided in article 4(c) of the Policy, nor any other to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name have been proved by the Respondent who carries this burden. Therefore, the Panel considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and therefore the Complainant has made the second prong. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the third element that a complainant must prove is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy in paragraph 4(b) sets out various circumstances, which may be treated by the Panel as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has acquired distinctiveness in the WIKIPEDIA trademark since its first use in 2001. Since then it has grown to become well-known in the United States and worldwide. Argentine daily newspaper “La Nación” (July 22, 2015) quotes newly elected President of the Complainant Patricio Lorente saying (in translation) “Wikipedia not only is the most consulted encyclopedia online, it is also the most important consultation work in history, both in content and reach, with versions in nearly 300 languages and more than 500 million people consulting each month.” In the light of the information and evidence produced by the Complainant, when the Respondent registered the disputed domain names, beginning with <wikipeia.org> on July 28, 2004, the Respondent knew or should have known the existence of the Complainant’s online encyclopedia and WIKIPEDIA mark which evidences bad faith registration. Furthermore, as stated by the Complainant and on the basis of printouts of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, and in the absence of a rebuttal by the Respondent, the Panel finds that by using the disputed domain names the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Even in the event of absence of active use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent, there are circumstances in the case such as the Complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the Complaint having been filed and the registrant’s concealment of its identity, which allow the Panel to infer that the disputed domain names were also used in bad faith ( WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Second Edition, paragraph 3.2 ). For such reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent both registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith and that the Complainant has therefore made out the third element of its case. 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 names <wikipedica.org>, <wikipediya.org>, <wikipeia.org>, <wikipidia.org> and <wikipipedia.org> be transferred to the Complainant. Miguel B. O'Farrell Sole Panelist Date: July 23, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around wikipedica.org
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.