Brodiees.com

The timeline behind brodiees.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Brodies LLP v. Lori Hoffman Case No. D2026-2390 1. The Parties The Complainant is Brodies LLP, United Kingdom (“UK”), internally represented. The Respondent is Lori Hoffman, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <brodiees.com> (“Disputed 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 June 2, 2026. On June 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 4, 2026, 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 (Privacy Service Provided by Withheld For Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 4, 2026, 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 June 5, 2026. 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 June 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Miguel B. O'Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on July 3, 2026. 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 one of the Scotland’s largest law firms, delivering services to UK and global organisations from its six offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, London and Leeds. Its history can be traced back to 1739. The Complainant’s clients include global companies, small and medium enterprises, entrepreneurs and individuals from all backgrounds who are active in almost every sector of the economy. The Complainant is the owner of United Kingdom trademark registration number UK00002215848 (the “Complainant’s Mark”) for the word mark BRODIES in classes 16, 35, 36, 41, 42, and 45 in respect of, amongst other things, legal services (the “Services”), registered on November 30, 1999. The Complainant has provided the Services for a number of decades, and has done so under the Complainant’s Mark since its registration. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <brodies.com> (the “Complainant’s Domain Name”) through which the Services are offered. A copy of the homepage to which the Complainant’s Domain Name resolves is attached at Annex 5 to the Complaint. The Complainant’s Domain Name was registered on October 1, 1996, and its website became operational shortly thereafter. In addition to the Complainant’s Domain Name, the Complainant owns over 30 other domain names including the Complainant’s Mark and variations or misspellings of the Complainant’s Mark, including <br0dies.com>, <broddies.co>, <brodiess.com>, <broides.com> and <brodies.co.uk>, in a deliberate effort to minimise the risks of typosquatting. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 24, 2026, and at the time of this Decision does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant provided evidence showing that the Dispute Domain Name has been used to send fraudulent emails. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s using the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge and belief, the Respondent has never been known by the Disputed Domain Name or the name “brodiees”. In addition, the Respondent is not making a bona fide commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor is the Respondent otherwise authorised to use Complainant's Mark for any purpose. page 3 The Respondent has deliberately adopted and used the virtually identical and confusingly similar “brodiees” name in order to obtain and be able to use the associated email address for fraudulent purposes. The use by the Respondent of the Disputed Domain Name has already involved fraudulent activities. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name intentionally as an instrument of fraud, to establish the email account with the name of a member of the Complainant “@brodiees.com”, from which the Respondent has already sent an email to a client (and may as long as it owns the Disputed Domain Name continue to send further emails to clients) of the Complainant, in an attempt at phishing and fraud or sending illegitimate emails using a virtually identical and confusingly similar email address to that of the Complainant, which could seriously harm and irreparably damage the reputation of the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision ordering the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. A domain name which consists of a variation of a trademark (typically a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling, referred to as typosquatting) is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. The generic Top-Level domain (gTLD) “.com” will be disregarded by the Panel in the confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1 The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 page 4 relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: phishing, passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name on April 24, 2026. In accordance with section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, the Panel considers that the inclusion in the Disputed Domain Name of a second letter “e” in the Complainant’s widely known Mark, by the Respondent who has no relationship with the Complainant is an act of typosquatting and creates a presumption of bad faith registration. The Respondent, when registering the disputed domain name, targeted the Complainant’s business and its trademark BRODIES, with the intention to confuse Internet users and capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s Mark for its own benefit. The fact that there is an absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the Disputed Domain Name is also a significant factor that contributes to the finding that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith (as stated in section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1). The Complainant has proven that the Disputed Domain Name has been used to send a fraudulent email to a third party pretending that it originated from the Complainant, precisely to a Complainant’s client in an attempt to benefit from such confusion. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed as applicable to this case: phishing, passing off, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <brodiees.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Miguel B. O'Farrell/ Miguel B. O'Farrell Sole Panelist Date: July 13, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.