Reueters loses a WIPO UDRP decision on ereuters.com
This WIPO decision shows how non-uniform the WIPO decisions are on
Even though WIPO found that ereuters.com was confusingly similiar to
reuters.com, and that the domain name holder had no legitimate rights in
the domain, WIPO did not transfer the domain, on the grounds that it
could not find bad faith. (Compare this, for example, the WIPO decision
"while the Panel decides that The Domain Name is confusingly similar
to the corresponding Trade Mark of the Complainant and that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in The Domain Name, the
Panel is unable to find that The Domain Name was registered and is being
used in bad faith. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the Panel
dismisses the complaint."
This is a bit surprising, because ereuters.com looks like the type of
domain that WIPO should be transfering. The current web page doesn't
seem that impressive, and has links to various register.com services, is
A non-profit forum to maintain and ensure
high standards of training in domestic help
"Ideas/Help to ensure Maid Training
Services all over Asia are first class
This was the domain name owner's apparently successful defense:
This is my response.
I want to refute all charges against me by Reuters.
First, I have no intention of registering the name for the intention of
selling, renting, for disruption purposes prevent the registering the
disputed domain name of any trademark names.
There are no intentions or attempts to attract for any commercial gains,
internet users to my site, thus creating confusion, nor any reason to
disrupt the business of Reuters.
There is significant differences as to the lines of business. My domain
is a forum for maid improvement discussions and non-profit orientated,
while Reuters is in the financial and news world.
There has never been any attempts to sell the domain name back to
Reuters, and an email has been sent to them indicating that the domain
name is not up for sale.
There is only a registered company by name of Reuters Ltd, but there is
no company or any registration for ereuters. Further, I have obtained
this name prior to any Reuters claims. Meaning they are now turning
around and say I am prohibiting the launch of their internet business
unit, hence delaying their business unit launch. This is very absurb
Last of all, Reuters came to me before by threatening legal actions, but
I responded by telling them to go ahead as they have no case, and I have
engaged a lawyer on standby ready for them. Now they?re using WIPO as
the percentage of cases favouring the complainant is a high of 86%,
while successful defence is only 14%, denoted from your website. This
shows why they are using you to help them in this dispute as they felt
the chances of winning is very high indeed. My plead to you is to please
Thank you and I shall await your decision."