Westmore · UDRP DecisionBlocket.delivery
The Panel ordered transfer of <blocket.delivery>. It found the Domain Name identical to the Complainant’s BLOCKET trademark, held that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith by operating a website impersonating the Complainant and intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain through confusion. The later error page did not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The timeline behind blocket.delivery
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 blocket.delivery — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how an exact-match domain combined with a website copying a trademark owner’s identity can resolve all three UDRP elements. The Panel treated the content of the former website as evidence not only of non-bona-fide use, but also of the Respondent’s prior knowledge and intent to create confusion. A later error page did not neutralize the earlier impersonating use.
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 Blocket AB v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC Case No. D2021-0543 1. The Parties The Complainant is Blocket AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <blocket.delivery> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 22, 2021. On February 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 22, 2021, 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 February 23, 2021, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 23, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 February 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 17, 2021. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 2021. 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 was founded in 1996 and is today a leading online buy-sell marketplace in Sweden with 5 million unique visitors per week. Different versions of Blocket are now available in several countries and 8 out of 10 Swedes has bought or sold something at the Complainant’s marketplace. The Complainant has registered the trademark BLOCKET in Sweden such as reg. no. 375226 BLOCKET registered on September 30, 2005. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name <blocket.com>. Moreover, the Complainant is present on various social media platforms, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. The Domain Name was registered on December 8, 2020. The Domain Name previously resolved to a website that purported to be the Complainant’s website, using the Complainant’s trademark and logo. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to an error webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registrations and argues that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is well known and recognized, there can be no legitimate use by the Respondent. The Respondent has no bona fide use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent’s use is evidence of bad faith. The Domain Name has resolved to a website that purported to offer services to those offered by the Complainant. The Respondent’s website made prominent use of the BLOCKET trademark and logo. The website was operated in Swedish and published information about how sellers could create an account, how to place an ad and information on the delivery process. The Respondent’s website did not contain any disclaimer or other statement indicating its non-affiliation with the owner of the BLOCKET trademark. The Respondent’s website gave the misleading impression of being an official website. The Complainant argues that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Respondent’s knowledge of the BLOCKET trademark and the services under the mark can readily be inferred from the Respondent’s subsequent use of the Domain Name in connection with a website that purported to be by the Complainant. The Complainant believes that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant by mimicking a website that had the look and feel of an official website. Moreover, the Respondent has been involved in at least 32 cases, which shows that the Respondent is frequently targeting well-known trademarks. 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 BLOCKET. The Domain Name is identical to the trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.delivery”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11 . The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical 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 the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. On the contrary, the Respondent’s use is evidence of bad faith. The Respondent’s website did not contain any disclaimer or other statement indicating its non-affiliation with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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 The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. Based on the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, the Panel concludes that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The same use is also evidence of bad faith use. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The fact that the Domain Name currently resolves to an error webpage does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Furthermore, the Respondent has been involved in numerous other UDRP cases, which suggests a pattern of bad faith conduct. For the reasons set out above, 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 <blocket.delivery> be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: March 31, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around blocket.delivery
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.