Westmore · UDRP DecisionTurbtax.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <turbtax.com> to Intuit Inc. It found the domain confusingly similar to the TURBOTAX mark because it omitted only the letter “o,” found no rights or legitimate interests after Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the case file concerning compensated redirection of users seeking Complainant’s services.
The timeline behind turbtax.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case is a straightforward example of a one-letter omission domain succeeding under the UDRP where established trademark rights predated the domain registration, the complainant alleged revenue-generating diversion, and the respondent defaulted. The decision also illustrates the burden-of-production approach under WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
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. Privacy.co.com, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 1088779 Case No. D2018-2660 1. The Parties Complainant is Intuit Inc. of Mountain View, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, United States. Respondent is Privacy.co.com, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 1088779 of Cheyenne, Wyoming, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <turbtax.com> is registered with Fabulous.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2018. On November 21, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 November 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 17, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 18, 2018. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2019. 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 (Registration No. 1369883). Complaint, Annex F. Complainant has also registered its TURBOTAX mark in jurisdictions around the world. Complaint, Annex G. The disputed domain name was registered on March 1, 2002. 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 disputed 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. 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” and the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.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 name 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 name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant has alleged that Respondent has been using the domain name to misdirect users seeking to utilize Complainant’s online services to third party web sites and for such acts Respondent received compensation. Respondent failed to deny any of this. Accordingly, the Panel finds on the case file 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 <turbtax.com> be transferred to Complainant. M. Scott Donahey Sole Panelist Date: January 14, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around turbtax.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
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.