Westmore · UDRP DecisionTempurcloud.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <tempurcloud.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainants' TEMPUR and TEMPUR-CLOUD marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that use of the Domain Name for pay-per-click links—including links to competitors—constituted bad-faith registration and use. The Respondent did not file a response.
The timeline behind tempurcloud.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 tempurcloud.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that removing punctuation from a distinctive trademark does not avoid confusing similarity and that trademark-related pay-per-click links, particularly links to competitors, can support findings against the respondent on both legitimate interests and bad faith. It also presents a registration-history limitation because the listed registrant appeared to be a privacy service and the underlying registrant was not identified.
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 Dan Foam ApS and Tempur-Pedic International Inc. v. Super Privacy Service Ltd. c/o Dynadot Case No. D2018-2796 1. The Parties The Complainants are Dan Foam ApS of Aarup, Denmark and Tempur-Pedic International Inc. of Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cahill IP, PLLC, United States. The Respondent is Super Privacy Service Ltd. c/o Dynadot, of San Mateo, California, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tempurcloud.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2018. On December 7, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 10, 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 December 12, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 1, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 2, 2019. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on January 10, 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 The Complainants have from 1992 developed, manufactured and marketed visco-elastic foam mattresses, cushions, pillows and other accessories under the TEMPUR-PEDIC, TEMPUR (from 1994) and TEMPUR-CLOUD (from January 2010) marks (the “Marks”). The Complainants have spent millions of United States dollars in advertising products in connection with the TEMPUR-CLOUD mark and generated millions of United States dollars revenue in sales of such products. The Complainant Dan Foam ApS is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks comprising TEMPUR including United States trademarks number 1,926,469 TEMPUR registered on October 10, 1995 and number 3,945,266 TEMPUR-CLOUD registered on April 12, 2011. The Domain Name was registered on May 10, 2011 and has at least since May 4, 2018 been registered in the name of the Respondent which appears to be a domain name privacy service. There is no evidence as to the identity of any underlying registrant. The term “Respondent” is used in this decision to refer collectively to the domain privacy service and the underlying registrant. The Domain Name resolves to a website incorporating links to third party websites including those of competitors of the Complainants. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Marks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainants must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have uncontested rights in the Marks, both by virtue of its trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the Marks over many years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the TEMPUR-CLOUD trademark save for the hyphen. The Domain Name further incorporates the TEMPUR trademark. In the Panel’s view the absence of a hyphen is immaterial. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainants have made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but for a webpage of links relating to pillows and mattresses comprising in turn click through links to websites including the websites of competitors of the Complainants as well as the Complainants’ own website. There is no suggestion that the Respondent has ever been known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainants. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In view of i) the nature of the Domain Name, identical save for the hyphen, to an unusual trademark; ii) the fact that the Domain Name was registered less than a month after registration of the TEMPUR-CLOUD trademark; and iii) the use to which the Domain Name has been put, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainants and its rights in the Marks in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel further considers that there is a legitimate presumption that the Respondent is deriving commercial gain from using the Domain Name for a website comprising pay-per-click links to third party websites. In the Panel’s view, this amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The Panel accordingly finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used 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 Domain Name, <tempurcloud.com> be transferred to the Complainants. Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: January 23, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around tempurcloud.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.