Westmore · UDRP DecisionMarchmoneymadness.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <marchmoneymadness.com> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain inserted the word “money” into the Complainant’s registered MARCH MADNESS mark and was used for a stock-selection bracket challenge modeled on college basketball brackets. The Panel found that the website confirmed targeting of the mark, that the Respondent had not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case on rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used to attract Internet users for commercial gain through confusion with the mark.
The timeline behind marchmoneymadness.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 marchmoneymadness.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how inserting a contextually related word inside a trademark may leave the mark confusingly recognizable, particularly where the associated website confirms deliberate targeting. It also shows the cross-element importance of website content: here, the bracket concept reinforced confusing similarity, undermined any claim to legitimate use, and demonstrated knowledge and bad-faith exploitation of the mark.
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 National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Robert Wilson Case No. D2019-0959 1. The Parties The Complainant is National Collegiate Athletic Association, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Loeb & Loeb, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC Unite States / Robert Wilson, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <marchmoneymadness.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 26, 2019. On April 29, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 30, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 1, 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 May 2, 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 May 7, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 27, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2019. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 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 member-led organization that regulates intercollegiate athletics in the United States. Every year during March and April, the Complainant organizes and executes the men’s single-elimination basketball tournament that features a select number of collegiate institutions to determine the national champion for that year. Since at least as early as 1982, people have referred to the tournament and the excitement that surrounds it as “March Madness”. Apparently recognizing the marketing value of that term, the Complainant has secured many trademark registrations containing those words, including, for example, United States Reg. No. 2485443, issued on September 4, 2001 for MARCH MADNESS. The Respondent, without authorization of the Complainant, registered the disputed domain name on February 2, 2012. It used the disputed domain name to set up a web site that that features the titles “March Money Madness” and “Welcome to March Money Madness 2018!” The website promotes the “March Money Madness Bracket Challenge” which “works just like predicting winners in the college basketball bracket, but in this competition you pick the winner of a matchup between two stocks!” Even after the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter, the website remained active. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark; 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. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely, that: (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 Complainant has succeeded under all three of these elements. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen , WIPO Case No. D2014-0657 . The Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the owner of the registered mark MARCH MADNESS as noted above. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MARCH MADNESS mark. Though the word “money” splits the mark in two, the presence of that word does not eliminate the confusing similarity. The content of a website associated with a disputed domain name is usually disregarded by panels when assessing confusing similarity under the first element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.15 . In some instances, however, panels have taken note of the content of the website associated with a disputed domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name. Id. This case presents such an instance. The content of the Respondent’s website clearly shows a targeting of the Complainant’s MARCH MADNESS trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant will be successful under this element of the Policy if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and if that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. The Complainant asserts, among other things, that: - The Respondent is not related to, affiliated or connected with the Complainant in any way. - The Complainant also has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the MARCH MADNESS mark, or to register any domain name incorporating the MARCH MADNESS mark. - There is no evidence that the Respondent is using or preparing to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4.c.(i) or (iii) of the Policy. Instead, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to offer a “March Money Madness” bracket challenge on its website. The website prominently uses the Complainant’s registered trademarks to create an association with the Complainant and its basketball tournament without an authorization from the Complainant. - There is no evidence that the Respondent has been known by the name “March Madness”. The Respondent has not 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 Policy element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under these facts, it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s MARCH MADNESS mark when it registered the disputed domain name, and that it did so with bad faith. The Complainant’s MARCH MADNESS mark was well known in 2012 when the disputed domain name was registered. And the content of the website that the Respondent set up at the disputed domain name – including references to sports brackets – makes it impossible to conclude registration was made without knowledge of the MARCH MADNESS mark. The Respondent likewise used the disputed domain name in bad faith by using it to redirect to a website unconnected with the Complainant. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name was an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the MARCH MADNESS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. For these reasons, the Complainant has satisfied the third element of the UDRP. 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 <marchmoneymadness.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: June 27, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around marchmoneymadness.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.