Westmore · UDRP DecisionTurbrtax.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <turbrtax.com> after finding it confusingly similar to Intuit Inc.'s TURBOTAX mark, finding that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and finding bad-faith registration and use based on the unrebutted allegation that the domain redirected users seeking the Complainant's services to third-party websites for compensation.
The timeline behind turbrtax.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 turbrtax.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward typosquatting dispute in which an established trademark was altered by one letter and the resulting domain redirected users to third-party websites. It also shows the practical importance of the prima facie burden-shifting framework under the second element and the consequences of leaving diversion and bad-faith allegations unrebutted.
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 Intuit Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot Case No. D2018-2648 1. The Parties The Complainant is Intuit Inc. of Mountain View, California, United States of America (“United States”) (“Complainant”), represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States (“Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <turbrtax.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 November 20, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 21, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 26, 2018. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on December 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 Complainant has provided financial management services to more than 46 million businesses and consumers over the course of 35 years. Its 9,000 employees worldwide provide primarily online services for the calculation and filing of taxes under the registered trademark and service mark TURBOTAX. Complainant has spent extensively on advertising on various media, including television and social media, including on events such as the Super Bowl and social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Complaint, Annexes D and E. Complainant has several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which registrations date back to as early as November 12, 1985. Complaint, Annex F. Complainant has also registered its TURBOTAX mark in jurisdictions around the world. Complaint, Annex G. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 19, 2012. The disputed domain name redirects to third-party web sites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its famous TURBOTAX mark, that Respondent has no legitimate relationship to Complainant giving rise to any license permission or authorization for the use of its trademark, and that Respondent has engaged in “typosquatting” by registering a slight variation of a trademark as a domain name which has been put to illegitimate use. Complainant contends that Respondent is using the domain name to misdirect Internet users looking to take advantage of Complainant’s services to be redirected to other sites which generate revenue to Respondent, including introducing malware into the computers of users seeking to utilize Complainant’s services. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and, (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and, (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s TURBOTAX trademark with the sole exception of the letter “o” (replaced with the letter “r”) and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1 . In the present case, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant has alleged that Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to misdirect users seeking to utilize Complainant’s online services to third party web sites and for such acts Respondent received compensation, and that such misdirection frequently involves the insertion of malware into users’ computers. Respondent failed to deny any of this. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 <turbrtax.com> be transferred to Complainant. M. Scott Donahey Sole Panelist Date: January 5, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around turbrtax.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.