Westmore · UDRP DecisionVue-flix.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <vue-flix.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered VUE mark, found no rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith to attract Internet users for commercial gain through confusion. The domain resolved to a website selling entertainment, television, and film-streaming packages priced in British Pounds.
The timeline behind vue-flix.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 vue-flix.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a trademark-plus-term domain can satisfy all three UDRP elements when the added term aligns with the parties’ commercial context and the domain is used for related paid services. The Panel relied not only on the domain wording but also on the website’s content, prominent branding, currency, the priority of trademark rights, and the absence of a rebuttal.
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 Vue Entertainment Holdings (UK) Limited v. Lee SuYeon Case No. D2021-1241 1. The Parties Complainant is Vue Entertainment Holdings (UK) Limited, United Kingdom (the “UK), represented by Bird & Bird LLP, United Kingdom. Respondent is Lee SuYeon, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vue-flix.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On April 22, 2021, 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 Complainant on May 3, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 6, 2021. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 27, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 1, 2021. The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on June 28, 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 Complainant operates cinemas at over 220 sites (offering 1997 screens) in many countries, including the UK, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Poland, and Lithuania. Complainant owns registrations for the trademark VUE for a range of goods and services, including digital streaming and related services. The VUE trademark is registered in many jurisdictions including the European Union (EU registration No. 12455549 filed December 20, 2013, registered on September 18, 2015) and the United Kingdom (UK Registration No. 00912455549 filed December 20, 2013, registered on September 18, 2015). Complainant is also the registrant of a number of domain names, including <myvue.com> and <vue-international.com>, which resolve to Complainant’s website, through which Complainant operates its cinema business, including functionality for taking bookings for film screenings. The Disputed Domain Name was first registered on January 15, 2021. The Disputed Domain Name leads to Respondent’s website, where Respondent offers to sell entertainment, television and film streaming packages. “Vue-Flix” appears in large letters at the top of Respondent’s website homepage. Respondent’s website lists streaming packages for sale in British Pounds. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it satisfies Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) because the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates its registered trademark VUE and that the addition of “-flix” does not prevent confusion. Complainant contends that it satisfies Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) because Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant contends that it satisfies Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) because the evidence permits an inference that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its rights when he registered the Disputed Domain Name intending to create a false impression of association with Complainant in order to defraud members of the public and attract business away from Complainant. Complainant offers evidence that it is especially well-known in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where Complainant has 91 cinemas with over 870 screens. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the VUE trademark, as evidenced by its trademark registrations in the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VUE trademark, as it incorporates the trademark in its entirety. The addition of the term “-flix” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests As is described in the WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1 , “while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lack rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, which Respondent has not rebutted. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent’s use of the VUE mark in the Disputed Domain Names. There is no evidence of record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel also incorporates here its findings below under the third element. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant registered its trademarks long before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names. In addition, Complaint has submitted substantial evidence that VUE cinemas were well-known, especially in the United Kingdom. The Panel finds, especially given Respondent’s failure to respond to the allegations in the Complaint, that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Respondent more than likely knew of Complainant and its rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Absent a benign explanation, this permits an inference of bad faith. The Panel also finds that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent offers streaming services that Internet users would likely associate with Complainant’s cinemas. Respondent’s pricing of its services in British Pounds supports an inference that Respondent targeted customers in the United Kingdom where, the submitted evidence shows, Complainant is well-known. The Panel finds the evidence sufficient that Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site... by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” Policy paragraph 4(b)(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 Disputed Domain Name <vue-flix.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lawrence K. Nodine Sole Panelist Date: July 13, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around vue-flix.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.