Dissecting WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2018-1853

In the domain name dispute case D2018-1853, Venus et Fleur LLC, a New York-based company, contested the domain name “eternalfleur.com” held by Amanda Wojtas. Filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on August 13, 2018, the case centered around the alleged similarity between the domain name and Venus et Fleur’s registered ETERNITY trademark.

Venus et Fleur LLC claimed that the domain name was confusingly similar to its trademark, lacked legitimate interests, and was registered in bad faith. However, the panel found the domain name was not confusingly similar to the ETERNITY trademark, as it comprised different words “eternal” and “fleur”. This decision meant that Venus et Fleur LLC failed to establish the first essential element of the dispute.

Considering this primary finding, the panel did not find it necessary to reach conclusions on the other elements of rights or legitimate interests and bad faith. Additionally, the panel decided against a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, despite Wojtas’s request, as it did not see sufficient evidence of bad faith or harassment intent in the filing of the complaint.

This case underscores the complexities of domain name disputes, particularly in instances where the disputed domain names are not identical but rather conceptually or semantically similar to existing trademarks.

For more information, the detailed case decision can be found on WIPO’s website.

In the domain name dispute case D2018-1853, Venus et Fleur LLC, a New York-based company, contested the domain name “eternalfleur.com” held by Amanda Wojtas. Filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on August 13, 2018, the case centered around the alleged similarity between the domain name and Venus et Fleur’s registered ETERNITY trademark. Venus…