Westmore · UDRP DecisionMajdalfutam.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <majdalfutam.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the MAJID AL FUTTAIM trademark despite the omission of two letters “i” and one letter “t”; found no rights or legitimate interests because the Respondent was unauthorized, unaffiliated, had no demonstrated trademark or unregistered rights, and made no active use of the domain; and found bad faith because the misspelling and absence of any explanation made it likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when registering the domain. The domain’s passive, suspended status did not preclude bad faith.
The timeline behind majdalfutam.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 majdalfutam.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward misspelling and passive-holding fact pattern. A domain may remain confusingly similar where several letters are omitted but the trademark is still recognizable. It also shows that a suspended or inactive domain does not insulate a respondent from a bad-faith finding when the domain closely targets an earlier mark, the respondent lacks rights, and no innocent explanation is supplied.
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 Majid Al Futtaim Holding L.L.C v. Victor Stone Case No. D2019-1889 1. The Parties The Complainant is Majid Al Futtaim Holding L.L.C, United Arab Emirates, represented by Talal Abu Ghazaleh Legal, Egypt. The Respondent is Victor Stone, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <majdalfutam.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 August 5, 2019. On August 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 6, 2019, 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 August 8, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 28, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 29, 2019. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on September 3, 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 registered in Dubai. It owns and operates shopping malls, retail and leisure establishments in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, with operations in 15 countries. The Complainant employs more than 43,000 people. It is a holding company in a group established by Majid Al Futtaim in 1992. Majid Al Futtaim manages three major operating subsidiaries: Majid Al Futtaim Properties, Majid Al Futtaim Retail, and Majid Al Futtaim Ventures. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for MAJID AL FUTTAIM in English and Arabic letters, including the United Arab Emirates registration no. 201644 for MAJID AL FUTTAIM, registered on July 23, 2014. The Complainant also owns the domain name <majidalfuttaim.com> since February 9, 2002. The Complainant has been operating its business under the tradename and trademark MAJID AL FUTTAIM. The Complainant’s tradename and trademark is extended to social media such as YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. The Domain Name was registered on October 16, 2017. At the time of filing the Complaint, and drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a webpage informing that the domain is suspended. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has registered trademark rights in MAJID AL FUTTAIM. The Complainant submits that it also has common law rights in the trademark and the Complainant’s trademark enjoys a worldwide reputation. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name reproduces the trademark and tradename and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, as the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. Moreover, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known in the market by the Domain Name. Finally, the Domain Name does not resolve to any active website. The Complainant argues that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The Complainant submits that the Domain Name has been registered with a deliberate intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainant and/or its licensee/s. The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The apparent lack of so-called active use does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this case. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the trademark MAJID AL FUTTAIM. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark save the omission of the letter “i” (twice) and the letter “t”. The minor misspelling does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.9 and 1.11 . The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the trademark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. The Domain Name does not resolve to any active website. The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Taking into account that the Domain Name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and the Respondent has offered no explanation for the registration, the Panel concludes that is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the Domain Name. The apparent lack of active use does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this case (see WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3 ). The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 <majdalfutam.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: September 6, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around majdalfutam.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.