Westmore · UDRP DecisionTrodat.taipei
The Panel ordered transfer of <trodat.taipei>. It found the Domain Name identical to the Complainant’s registered TRODAT mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because there was no authorized or legitimate use and the registrant had falsely used the name of the Complainant’s employee, and found bad faith from the false contact details, demonstrated awareness of the Complainant, and passive holding of a domain name incorporating a mark with a reputation.
The timeline behind trodat.taipei
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 trodat.taipei — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how passive holding can support a bad-faith finding when combined with an exact match to an established mark, false registration details, and evidence that the registrant knew of the complainant. The false use of a complainant employee’s identity was especially significant to both the rights-or-legitimate-interests and bad-faith analyses.
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 Trodat GmbH v. Alexander Schatzl, whois privacy Case No. D2017-2527 1. The Parties The Complainant is Trodat GmbH of Wels, Austria, represented by Salomonowitzl Horak, Austria. The Respondent is Alexander Schatzl, whois privacy of Taipei, Taiwan Province of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <trodat.taipei> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Net-Chinese Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 22, 2017, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 4, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 24, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 25, 2018. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on January 31, 2018. 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 in the business of self inking stamps and is the owner of, inter alia , an International registration for TRODAT registered since 1984 (international registration No. 484432, registered on March 30, 1984). The Domain Name has not been used and has been registered on September 21, 2017 with a false name and address, the name given being an employee of the Complainant who did not, in fact, register the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows: According to ICANN’s WhoIs database the Respondent in this administrative proceeding is “Alexander Schatzl”, however the real Alexander Schatzl works for the Complainant as IT project manager and he did not register the Domain Name. The mailing address given for the Domain Name is unknown to the Complainant and appears to be fraudulent as they are the details for a registrar. The Complainant is a market leader in the business of self inking stamps and is the owner of, inter alia, an International trade mark registration for TRODAT registered since 1984 in relation to its business. TRODAT has been used as a trade mark for stamps since 1947. The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trade mark plus the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.taipei”. Since the TLD is to be ignored when assessing the identity or similarity of a mark and a domain name, the Domain Name must be considered to be identical to the Complainant’s TRODAT trade mark. The Complainant has not given any licence for the Respondent to use its mark and the Domain Name has not been registered by the real Alexander Schatzl of the Complainant. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests relating to the Domain Name. TRODAT is an invented word and the Respondent would not choose it unless it was seeking to create an impression of an association with the Complainant. This is all the more so since the Respondent has sought to associate itself with the Complainant by using the name of one of the Complainant’s employees. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. Providing false contact details is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Domain Name has not been used. Passive holding of a domain name can be registration and use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s TRODAT mark (registered as an international registration for, inter alia , stamps since 1984) and the TLD “.taipei”. The TLD “taipei” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the TRODAT mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has falsely used the name of an employee of the Complainant. As such, there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name and only evidence to show the registration is not legitimate. There has been no use of the Domain Name. Accordingly there has not been any bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial use in relation to it. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark. The use of the name of one of the Complainant’s employees to register the Domain Name shows the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the Domain Name. Registering a domain name with false contact details is commonly held by UDRP panels to be bad faith under the Policy. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 . As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 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 Domain Name <trodat.taipei> be transferred to the Complainant. Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: February 6, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around trodat.taipei
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.