Westmore · UDRP DecisionKpnhost.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <kpnhost.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KPN trademark because it incorporated KPN in full with the descriptive term “host.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was unauthorized, was not commonly known by the domain, and used the domain for websites offering competing hosting and IT services while either passing itself off as the Complainant or misleading users about the Respondent’s identity and location. The Panel also found registration and use in bad faith, concluding that the Respondent knew of the KPN mark and intentionally sought commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind kpnhost.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 trademark-plus-descriptive-term dispute in which the added word related directly to the services promoted through the domain. The competitive website use, references associated with the Complainant, misleading address information, and absence of a Respondent explanation collectively supported findings on both legitimate interests and bad faith. It also contains an evidentiary caution: the decision expressly noted that screenshots of the alleged first website were not provided, even though the Panel ultimately characterized that website as passing itself off as connected with the Complainant.
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 Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. black blue Case No. D2021-2679 1. The Parties The Complainant is Koninklijke KPN N.V., Netherlands, represented internally. The Respondent is black blue, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kpnhost.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 16, 2021. On August 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, 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 September 15, 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 amended Complaint on September 20, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2021. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on November 2, 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 is telecommunications and information and communications technology company that provides a variety of IT services in the Netherlands. In 2020, it had a customer base of over 5 million people. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for marks consisting of the letters KPN (the “KPN Mark”) in various jurisdictions including a Benelux registration from March 2, 1993 (registration number BX 529431) for goods in classes 9, 12, 16, and services in classes 35 and 36. The Domain Name <kpnhost.com> was registered on January 22, 2021, and is presently inactive. According to the Complainant (though the Complaint does not provide any screenshots evidencing this fact) initially the Domain Name resolved to a website (the “Respondent’s First Website”) that purported to offer website hosting telecommunications and IT services in the Netherlands and included a number of links to webpages operated by the Complainant and included a reference to the Complainant’s phone number. The Complainant then initiated a notice and takedown procedure. The Respondent then used the Domain Name to redirect to a website (the “Respondent’s Second Website”) that under the name “Global Cloud” continued to offer hosting and IT services purportedly from an entity with an address in the Netherlands, though such an address is an false address; a company unrelated to the Respondent is located at the address. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant makes the following contentions: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KPN Mark; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is the owner of the KPN Mark, having registered the KPN Mark in the European Union and other jurisdictions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the KPN Mark since it wholly incorporates the KPN Mark along with the additional descriptive term “host”. There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to a website passing itself off as the Complainant and offering hosting services in direct competition with the Complainant’s services. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name to resolve to a website that advertises competing services by passing itself off as the Complainant, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to divert Internet users searching for the Complainant to that website for commercial gain, either by offering the services or to operate a scam website where visitors pay for services not delivered. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. The Complainant is the owner of the KPN Mark, having registered the KPN Mark as a trademark in various jurisdictions including the European Union. The Domain Name incorporates the KPN Mark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term “host”. The addition of descriptive terms to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KPN Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the KPN Mark or a mark similar to the KPN Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar Domain Name for websites that offer services in competition with the Complainant and either directly pass itself off as the Complainant (in the case of the Respondent’s First Website) or mislead the public as to the location and identity of the Respondent (in the case of the Respondent’s Second Website) does not amount to use for a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has had the opportunity to put on evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, including submissions as to why its conduct amounts to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name under the Policy. In the absence of such a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location (paragraph 4(b) of the Policy). The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the KPN Mark at the time the Respondent acquired the Domain Name. At the date of registration the KPN Mark had been in use for over 30 years and the Complainant had acquired a considerable reputation as a provider of telecommunications services in the Netherlands. The Respondent has provided no explanation, and none is immediately obvious, why an entity would register a domain name incorporating the coined KPN Mark and redirect it to a website offering website hosting services in the Netherlands similar to the services offered by the Complainant unless there was an awareness of and an intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its KPN Mark. In these circumstances, the Respondent’s conduct in registering the Domain Name when it was aware of the Complainant’s rights and lacked rights or legitimate interests of its own amounts to registration in bad faith. Both of the Respondent’s Websites have offered website hosting services in direct competition with the Complainant, and indeed the Respondent’s First Website directly passes itself off as being connected to the Complainant. In these circumstances where the Respondent has offered no plausible explanation for the registration of the Domain Name the Panel finds that that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the KPN Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. As such the Panel finds that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith 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 Domain Name <kpnhost.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: November 16, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around kpnhost.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.