Navigating the Complexities of Domain Name Disputes: A Study of Case D2018-2481

In the domain name dispute case D2018-2481, ClearBank Limited, a London-based financial institution, filed a complaint against Privacydotlink Customer 2450865 / Kwangpyo Kim, Mediablue Inc., over the domain name clearbank.com. The complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on October 31, 2018. ClearBank, established on August 7, 2015, owns several trademarks for CLEARBANK registered in various jurisdictions including the EU, the US, and internationally with WIPO.

The disputed domain name was created on October 16, 2003, and acquired by the respondent on February 2, 2014, at a public auction. It resolved to a parking page with pay-per-click links related to banking and financial services. ClearBank attempted to purchase the domain name before filing the complaint, with the respondent’s selling price reaching 300,000 USD.

ClearBank argued that the domain name was confusingly similar to its trademarks, and that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in it, claiming bad faith registration and usage by the respondent. However, the respondent contended that they acquired clearbank.com for its generic value and used it legitimately for pay-per-click advertising. They argued that their registration predated ClearBank’s trademarks and business establishment, negating any bad faith intentions.

The WIPO panel, in its decision dated January 15, 2019, denied ClearBank’s complaint. The panel found the domain name identical to ClearBank’s trademark but concluded that the respondent had legitimate interests in the domain name. The panel recognized the respondent’s use of the domain for advertising related to its generic meaning as legitimate. Additionally, the panel determined that there was no evidence of bad faith registration or use by the respondent, as the domain name was acquired before ClearBank’s trademark rights were established.

The panel also addressed the allegation of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) by the respondent, finding no evidence of bad faith by ClearBank in filing the complaint. The panel noted that the use of a domain name for pay-per-click purposes, combined with a sale offer, often satisfies the requirements of the Policy. The decision underlines the intricacies involved in domain name disputes, especially when the domain name predates the complainant’s trademark rights and has legitimate uses aligned with its generic or descriptive nature​​.

In the domain name dispute case D2018-2481, ClearBank Limited, a London-based financial institution, filed a complaint against Privacydotlink Customer 2450865 / Kwangpyo Kim, Mediablue Inc., over the domain name clearbank.com. The complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on October 31, 2018. ClearBank, established on August 7, 2015, owns several trademarks for…