Westmore · UDRP DecisionPsg-official.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <psg-official.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PSG trademark because it incorporated the mark in its entirety and the addition of “official” and a hyphen did not avoid confusion. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests and used the domain for a website featuring the PSG trademark and purporting to sell tickets for the Complainant’s home football matches. That use demonstrated knowledge and targeting of the Complainant and intentionally attracted users through confusion for commercial gain.
The timeline behind psg-official.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 psg-official.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a domain combining an entire well-established mark with “official” can heighten the appearance of authorization, particularly when the associated website offers products or services directly tied to the trademark owner. The outcome rested not merely on the domain wording, but on the close alignment between the website’s ticket offering and the Complainant’s football activities.
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 Paris Saint-Germain Football v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Alex Temple Case No. D2019-3150 1. The Parties The Complainant is Paris Saint-Germain Football, France, represented by Plasseraud IP, France. The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of the United States of America / Alex Temple, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <psg-official.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 December 19, 2019. On December 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 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 January 2, 2020 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 January 3, 2020. 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 January 6, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 29, 2020. The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on February 10, 2020. 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, commonly called by its initials, PSG, is a French football club established in 1970 and based in Paris. It has a considerable reputation in the area of professional football not only in France but across the world. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks incorporating its PSG trademark, including the French trademark registration No. 1564786 for P.S.G, registered on February 14, 1989, the French trademark registration No. 3647436 for P.S.G, registered on April 29, 2009 and the International Registration No. 588303 for P.S.G, registered on February 8, 1992. The Complainant’s official website is accessible at “www.psg.fr”. The disputed domain name <psg-official.com> was registered on November 6, 2019, and resolves into a website offering for sale tickets to football matches of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name integrates the trademark PSG in its entirety as its dominant element, together with the generic word “official”, which does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark in any significant way. Moreover, the word “official” contributes to create a likelihood of confusion for the Internet users, who will believe that the domain name is owned and/or administered by the Complainant, which is not the case. Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” has to be ignored. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name neither corresponds to the name of the Respondent, nor to any trademark registered in the name of the Respondent. The Respondent has not been known under the disputed domain name, nor has he ever asked for, or given, any permission by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark PSG in any way. There is no evidence of any fair or noncommercial or bona fide use of the disputed domain name, which redirects to an active online shop which promotes tickets for Paris Saint-Germain football matches, including home matches. The Respondent acted to mislead Internet users as he used the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name and the corresponding website to fraudulently sell tickets for Paris Saint-Germain football matches outside the official network administered by the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent could not ignore the existence of the Complainant and its activities at the time of registration. The Respondent registered the disputed domain in bad faith, in order to misdirect Internet users who are searching for the Complainant’s official ticketing services. Registration of the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the well-known Complainant’s trademark by the Respondent who does not have a relationship to that mark amounts to sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Respondent acted with an intention to mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s website is somehow associated with or authorized by the Complainant. The contested domain name and the corresponding website are used for fraudulent purposes, in order to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Moreover, as the Complainant is the unique operator for ticketing related to the Paris Saint-Germain’s home matches, use of the disputed domain name to sell the tickets for the home matches contributes to disrupt the Complainant’s business by creating a parallel and unauthorized ticketing network. The Respondent made the disputed domain name able to send emails means that the Respondent can send emails through the email address [...]@psg-official.com, and can therefore use the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails such as messages containing spam, or phishing attempts. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the applicable gTLD in a domain name ( e.g. , “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, in the present case the Panel disregards the gTLD “.com” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Panel finds that in the present case addition of the term “official” and hyphen in the disputed domain name do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademarks. The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, (see, e.g. , World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe , WIPO Case No. D2008-0642 ). The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its priory registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g. , Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPOCase No. D2014-1875). Considering the above, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to purport to sell the Complainant’s tickets for football matches shows that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent clearly knew and targeted Complainant’s prior registered and famous trademark, which affirms a finding of bad faith registration and use (see, e.g. , The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian , WIPO Case No. D2009-0113 ). According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s trademark is well established through long and widespread use, and the Complainant has acquired a significant reputation and level of goodwill in its trademark both in France and internationally. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark was registered in bad faith. According to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location. In the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is resolving to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and falsely pretending to be authorized to sell tickets for the Complainant’s home football matches this intentionally attracting Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of the website and its products. The Panel finds the above affirms the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under 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 disputed domain name <psg-official.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Taras Kyslyy Sole Panelist Date: February 21, 2020
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around psg-official.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.