Westmore · UDRP DecisionIbm-usa.com
The Panel ordered transfer of ibm-usa.com after finding that the Domain Name incorporated the IBM trademark in its entirety, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith to obtain commercial gain through trademark-targeted pay-per-click links.
The timeline behind ibm-usa.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 ibm-usa.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a straightforward trademark-targeting fact pattern in which an entire distinctive mark was combined with a geographic term and used for pay-per-click links expressly related to the trademark owner. The content of the links provided direct contextual support for the Panel's conclusion that the Respondent had the IBM trademark in mind and sought commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv).
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 International Business Machines Corporation v. Rajiv Jain, R&R Bikes Case No. D2018-2019 1. The Parties The Complainant is International Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, New York, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondent is Rajiv Jain, R&R Bikes of Ludhiana, Punjab, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name, <ibm-usa.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 4, 2018. On September 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 6, 2018, 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 September 10, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 30, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 1, 2018. The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 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 a United States corporation whose business was founded in the latter part of the 19th century. It adopted its current name in 1924 and is best known under the acronym “IBM” which it has registered as a trade mark throughout the world. One such registration is United States Registration No. 1,058,803 registered on February 15, 1977 for a wide variety of goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 16, 28, 37, 41 and 42, many of them being computer-related goods and services, the Complainant’s core business area. The Domain Name was registered on December 22, 2011. The Domain Name is connected to a pay‑per‑click webpage featuring advertising links such as “IBM SERVER” and “IBM CLOUD” and listing the Domain Name for sale. On May 10, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent drawing the Respondent’s attention to the Complainant’s trade mark rights and seeking, inter alia ,transfer of the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IBM trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name features the Complainant’s IBM trade mark in its entirety and, as such, is confusingly similar to that trade mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that it has no connection with the Respondent and has never authorized the Respondent to use its IBM trade mark for this or any other purpose. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the nature of the pay-per-click links on the Respondent’s website is such that it is clear that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant and is doing so for commercial gain in the form of pay-per-click revenue. The Complainant contends that such use cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s contentions and the Panel can conceive of no legitimate use that the Respondent can make of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the view of the Panel, the nature of the Domain Name and the use to which it is being put bear out the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trade mark in mind and with a view to deriving commercial gain by way of pay-per-click revenue stemming from visitors attracted to the Respondent’s website through the Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Complainant’s IBM trade mark. The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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, <ibm-usa.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Tony Willoughby Sole Panelist Date: October 13, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around ibm-usa.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.