Westmore · UDRP DecisionPinsentmasons-uk.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <pinsentmasons-uk.com>. The Domain Name incorporated the Complainant’s PINSENT MASONS mark with the addition of “-uk” and was used for an email fraudulently requesting GBP 3,000 from one of the Complainant’s clients. The Panel found confusing similarity, no rights or legitimate interests, and bad-faith registration and use directed at deception for commercial gain.
The timeline behind pinsentmasons-uk.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates that a domain need not host an active website to support transfer where it is used as infrastructure for impersonation emails. The combination of full-mark incorporation, a geographic suffix associated with the Complainant’s country, and a documented payment request supported findings across all three UDRP elements.
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 Pinsent Masons LLP v. Grey, CDLP Case No. D2019-0854 1. The Parties The Complainant is Pinsent Masons LLP, United Kingdom (“UK”), represented internally. The Respondent is Grey, CDLP, UK. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pinsentmasons-uk.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 April 16, 2019. On April 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 17, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 17, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 18, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended 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 April 26, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 16, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 17, 2019. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on May 24, 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 Complainant is a full-service international law firm providing legal services across a broad spectrum of practice areas. It operates through 25 offices in the UK, Europe, the Gulf, Asia Pacific, and Africa. The Complainant has over 400 partners, a total legal team of around 1,800, and more than 2,500 staff. It has carried on business under the name Pinsent Masons LLP since a merger in 2004, and promotes its services through its website at “www.pinsentmasons.com”. The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks in respect of PINSENT MASONS including UK trademark number 2484418 registered on September 12, 2008, and European Union trademark number 6819197 registered on November 26, 2008. The Domain Name was registered on March 19, 2019, and does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant was notified by one of its clients that it had received an email from an email address at the Domain Name fraudulently requesting payment to the Respondent of GBP 3,000. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its PINSENT MASONS trademark, 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 Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the trademark PINSENT MASONS, both by virtue of its several trademark registrations and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the PINSENT MASONS mark over some 15 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s mark together with “-uk”. In the Panel’s view, the additional hyphen and letters does not detract from the distinctiveness of the PINSENT MASONS mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has submitted strong prima facie evidence that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It has provided evidence that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails seeking unauthorized payments. By using a domain name confusingly similar and substantially identical to the name of the Complainant, the Respondent has attempted to mislead at least one recipient into believing that they were dealing with the Complainant. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and has accordingly failed to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the 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 The Panel considers that there is no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when it registered the Domain Name and that it did so with the intention of using the Domain Name to deceive Internet users into believing that it was registered by or associated with the Complainant, all with a view to commercial gain through deceptive emails. The Panel cannot conceive of a legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. This amounts to paradigm bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the circumstances, the Panel 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 <pinsentmasons-uk.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: June 4, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around pinsentmasons-uk.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.