Westmore · UDRP DecisionEedbox.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <eedbox.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the REDBOX mark because it replaced the letter “r” with “e,” constituting typosquatting. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because he was not authorized or commonly known by the domain and used it for commercial pay-per-click links, including links mentioning the Complainant and pointing to competitors. The Panel found registration and use in bad faith based on typosquatting, commercial confusion, disruption, and the Respondent’s pattern of adverse UDRP decisions involving third-party marks.
The timeline behind eedbox.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 eedbox.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward typosquatting case in which a one-letter replacement, combined with pay-per-click links referring to the mark owner and competitors, supported findings under all three UDRP elements. The case also shows how a documented pattern of prior adverse UDRP decisions may reinforce bad faith, even though the published decision did not identify those earlier cases individually.
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 Redbox Automated Retail, LLC d/b/a Redbox v. Milen Radumilo Case No. D2019-1600 1. The Parties The Complainant is Redbox Automated Retail, LLC d/b/a Redbox, United States of America, represented by Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, United States of America (“USA”). The Respondent is Milen Radumilo, Barbados. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eedbox.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 8, 2019. On July 9, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, 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 July 18, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 7, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 8, 2019. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 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 limited liability company offering entertainment products and services in the USA. The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia , the mark REDBOX, registered in the USA under the trademark No. 2919854 on January 18, 2005, in classes 9, 21, 23, 26, 36, and 38, and used since 2003. It owns “redbox.com” which is also registered as a trade mark. The Domain Name registered in February 28, 2019, has been used for pay-per-click links referencing the Complainant and pointing to competing services also. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia , the mark REDBOX, registered in the USA for entertainment and used since 2002. It owns “redbox.com”, which is also registered as a trade mark. The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, designed to be so as a typosquatting registration, replacing only the “r” with an “e” and adding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” neither of which prevent said confusing similarity. The Respondent has been the subject of adverse findings in a number of UDRP cases including six cases involving typosquatting of third party well known marks. The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. He is not asking a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name. The use is confusing and intentionally seeking to trade on the Complainant’s name and so cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services. It is registration and use in bad faith. Typosquatting is bad faith per se . B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of a misspelling of the Complainant’s REDBOX mark (registered in the USA for entertainment related goods and services as of 2005) and the gTLD “.com”. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that misspellings such as replacement of a letter such as the replacement here of an “r” with an “e” and the addition of gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. As a typosquatting registration it is designed to confuse. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its trademark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. The Domain Name has pointed to a site with pay per click links. The latter use is commercial, so cannot be legitimate noncommercial or fair use. There is no indication that there is no authorisation from the Complainant and some of the links mention the Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds this use is intended to confuse. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. Typosquatting is a further indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interest in Domain Name. As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a misspelling version of the Complainant’s mark in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. In the opinion of the Panel, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe the Domain Name is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers links mentioning the Complainant’s mark and links to competitors of the Complainant under a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy 4 (b)(iii) and (iv). The Respondent has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the UDRP including typosquatting of other well known third party marks which demonstrates a pattern of such conduct. As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv). 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 <eedbox.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: August 16, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around eedbox.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.