Westmore · UDRP DecisionBhpbllliton.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <bhpbllliton.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the BHP BILLITON trademark because it differed through a single-letter misspelling and the addition of the “.com” gTLD. The Complainant established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which went unrebutted. Bad-faith registration and use were found based on the distinctive mark, the typo, the Complainant’s earlier Australian trademark registration, and the domain’s redirection to the Complainant’s official website.
The timeline behind bhpbllliton.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 bhpbllliton.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that redirecting a typo domain to the trademark owner’s own official website does not necessarily prevent a finding of bad-faith use. Here, the redirection instead supported the Panel’s conclusion that the Respondent knew of the distinctive mark, while the surrounding circumstances supported all three UDRP elements.
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 BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Abiola Akinloye Case No. D2015-1771 1. The Parties The Complainant is BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, represented by Griffith Hack Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Australia. The Respondents are Abiola Akinloye of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and Domains By Proxy LLC, Domains By Proxy LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bhpbllliton.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”) 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 6, 2015. On October 6, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 6, 2015, 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 the Complainant on October 22, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 26, 2015. The Center verified that the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 26, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 15, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 16, 2015. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 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 and its group of companies is a large diversified resources group. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the trademark BHP BILLITON in various countries, including Australia, in numerous classes. Its registrations in Australia include registration no. 1141449 in Classes 4, 6, 37, 40 and 42 registered on October 18, 2006. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name <bhpbilliton.com>. The disputed domain name <bhpbllliton.com> was registered on November 21, 2014. The disputed domain name currently auto-forwards to the Complainant’s official website at “www.bhpbilliton.com”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <bhpbllliton.com> is a misspelling of the BHP BILLITON mark. It is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. No rights or legitimate interests The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for BHP BILLITON. Further, it is not making legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. Registered and used in bad faith The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the BHP BILLITON trademark. The website under the disputed domain name is pointed to the Complainant’s official website. This may have been done to lend legitimacy to the disputed domain name. In any event, by not using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is effectively passively holding the disputed domain name. As such, the Complainant alleged registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <bhpbllliton.com> is almost identical to the registered trademark BHP BILLITON. The only differences are that the first “i” has been changed to an “l” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark BHP BILLITON. The first part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) provides: “While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.” The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case. The second part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name <bhpbllliton.com> was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. BHP BILLITON constitutes a distinctive trademark and the disputed domain name is very unlikely to have been registered by the Respondent without any knowledge on its part of the Complainant’s trademark, especially since (1) the disputed domain name re-directs to the Complainant’s official website; (2) the disputed domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s trademark, and (3) the Complainant’s trademark was registered in Australia well before the registration of the disputed domain name. These factors all lead to a conclusion that the disputed domain name being registered in bad faith. In addition, as stated by the Complainant, the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name <bhpbllliton.com>. While the disputed domain name does not appear to have been used other than to point to the Complainant’s website, this does not prevent a finding of bad faith. As the Complainant argues, this could have been done to give some appearance of legitimacy to the disputed domain name. Having examined all the circumstances of the case the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 ). The third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. 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 <bhpbllliton.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Douglas Clark Sole Panelist Date: December 4, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bhpbllliton.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.