Westmore · UDRP DecisionChatrouletteclone.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <chatrouletteclone.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the CHATROULETTE mark because it incorporated the mark in full and added the descriptive word “clone.” The Complainant had acquired rights through the platform’s rapid recognition before the domain’s February 2010 registration. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it used the domain for a competing webcam-chat service, and the same competing use, together with the mark’s rapid fame, established bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind chatrouletteclone.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 chatrouletteclone.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how rapid recognition of an Internet-native brand can establish protectable rights before trademark registration, particularly where substantial online traffic predates the disputed domain. It also shows the evidentiary importance of a domain’s wording and use: adding “clone” reinforced the connection to the original platform, while use for a directly competing service supported both the absence of legitimate interests and 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 Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Envient Case No. D2018-2240 1. The Parties The Complainant is Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette of Sliema, Malta, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Envient of Buzau, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <chatrouletteclone.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 2, 2018. On October 3, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 3, 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 October 4, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 24, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 25, 2018. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on November 28, 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 developed an online platform called Chatroulette that pairs random people from around the world together for real-time, webcam-based conversations. The Complainant launched the platform and began using the CHATROULETTE mark in 2009, and by January 2010 the site’s traffic had reached approximately 50,000 visitors per day. The disputed domain name was registered on February 19, 2010. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to establish a website that offers and attempts to sell a webcam-based Internet chat service called CamChat, which directly competes with the Complainant’s own offerings. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On October 25 and October 27, 2018, as well as on November 28 and 29, 2018, an individual purporting to write on behalf of the Respondent contacted the Center in two separate email messages, expressing confusion over why the Respondent was being brought into these proceedings, and expressing, among other things, that it was willing to “comply with everything required in order to resolve this matter”. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. See Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention , WIPO Case No. D2001-0505 . In this case, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark CHATROULETTE in its entirety. The additional word “clone” in this context – that is, denoting a copy or imitation of the Complainant’s online platform – does not avoid the confusing similarity. Although the Complainant did not have any trademark registrations at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Panel finds that the Complainant had rights in the CHATROULETTE mark at that time. As noted above, the Chatroulette platform quickly became popular. The Complainant asserts – and this fact is not rebutted by the Respondent – that by the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Complainant’s Chatroulette website was receiving many thousands of users each day. These facts establish that the Complainant had rights in the CHATROULETTE mark when the disputed domain name was registered. Paragraph 1.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) supports for this conclusion: “Particularly with regard to brands acquiring relatively rapid recognition due to a significant Internet presence, panels have also been considering factors such as the type and scope of market activities and the nature of the complainant’s goods and/or services”. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests A complainant succeeds under this element if it makes a prima facie showing that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the respondent. The Complainant in this case asserts that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, to use the CHATROULETTE mark in a domain name or in any other manner. And the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances to establish a website that offers and attempts to sell a webcam-based Internet chat service called CamChat, which directly competes with the Complainant’s own offerings, is not use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor can it be considered a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. These assertions establish the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Respondent has not formally answered the Complainant’s assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Because the Complainant’s CHATROULETTE mark is well-known, and became well-known very quickly after the Complainant’s site’s launch, particularly in relation to online services for video interaction, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of that mark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to publish a website for services very similar to those offered by the Complainant under the CHATROULETTE mark. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element. 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, <chatrouletteclone.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: December 11, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around chatrouletteclone.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.