Westmore · UDRP DecisionPumaguard.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <pumaguard.com> to PUMA SE. It found the domain confusingly similar because it incorporated the registered PUMA mark in its entirety. The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. The Panel also found bad-faith registration and use, concluding that the well-known character of the PUMA mark made it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights when registering and using the domain.
The timeline behind pumaguard.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates a straightforward transfer where a well-known mark was wholly incorporated into a domain used for an unrelated commercial product. The Respondent’s default did not itself establish the UDRP elements, but it left the Complainant’s prima facie case on legitimate interests and its allegations of deliberate targeting unrebutted.
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 PUMA SE v. Rajesh Vaidya, Hitech Point Technologies Case No. D2021-1674 1. The Parties The Complainant is PUMA SE, Germany, represented by RNA IP Attorneys, India. The Respondent is Rajesh Vaidya, Hitech Point Technologies, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <pumaguard.com> 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 May 28, 2021. On May 28, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 29, 2021, 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 June 3, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2021. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on June 30, 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 operates in the sporting goods and sporting apparel space, designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel, accessories and other products. It has used the mark PUMA since at least as early as 1948, and owns a number of registrations for that mark and similar variations around the world. For example, the Complainant owns Indian trademark registration number 323053/18 for the word mark PUMA, registered on February 15, 1977. The disputed domain name was registered on December 29, 2012. As of the filing of the Complaint, the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to publish a web page that advertises a device and related services used to prevent automobile theft. At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant has also initiated civil litigation proceedings against the Respondent in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (CS (Comm) 137/2021) and has been successful in obtaining ex-parte injunction order against the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See , Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen , WIPO Case No. D2014-0657 . The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the PUMA mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the PUMA mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: - The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise given consent to the Respondent to use or commercially exploit the PUMA mark. - The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s prior rights in the PUMA mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. - There is no credible legitimate reason for the Respondent to have chosen the disputed domain name. Instead, according to the Complainant, the Respondent’s purpose in choosing the disputed domain name was plainly to use fame of the Complainant’s PUMA mark to generate web-traffic and to confuse Internet users who might be looking for the Complainant and its products. - The PUMA mark as used by the Respondents infringes upon the trademark rights of the Complainant, and accordingly, the Respondent is not engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established its prima facie case and the Respondent has not provided any evidence to rebut the presumption created by these assertions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has prevailed on this second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”. The Panel finds, based on the available record, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Given how well known the Complainant’s PUMA mark is, it is not plausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s rights, when the Respondent registered and began using the disputed domain name. The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its mark. The Respondent has not offered facts to contradict these assertions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing this third UDRP element. 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 <pumaguard.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: July 14, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around pumaguard.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.