Walmart.horse - an abusive domain name registration?

Walmart.horse - an abusive domain name registration?

A David and Goliath-style cybersquatting case involving a ‘joke’ website, consisting of a picture of a horse superimposed over a supermarket, recently came to a conclusion. Kitty Rosser, an associate at Birketts LLP, explains the background to the case and the legal issues it raised.

What was the background to the Walmart.horse story?

Since late 2013, the domain name landscape has undergone significant change with the release of thousands of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Historically, registrants could only choose from around 20 different gTLDs (such as .com, .net. .biz etc). The decision to release new gTLDs offers a solution to the constantly increasing demand for a finite resource and allows registrants a new opportunity to further define their offerings and stand out in the online space. However, the new gTLDs also pose some challenging brand protection issues.

In late February this year, cartoonist Jeph Jacques took advantage of the release of the new gTLD .horse to register the domain Walmart.horse. He pointed the domain to a single page website, the sole content of which was an image of a horse superimposed in front of a Walmart store front. In March Jacques received a cease and desist letter from Walmart alleging infringement of its trade mark rights. Jacques responded to Walmart arguing that, as his site was an obvious parody, his use of the Walmart mark fell within the fair use defence (note that while this is a defence under US trade mark law there is no equivalent provision in UK law). In April Walmart filed a claim with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (UDRP). Jacques removed his site and voluntarily transferred the domain to Walmart before any decision was made under the UDRP.

How could the case have turned out?

To have succeeded in its claim under the UDRP, Walmart would need to have been able to show that:

(i) the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it had rights

(ii) Jacques had no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain, and

(iii) Jacques had registered, and was using, the domain in bad faith

While it is clear that Walmart would have had little trouble in fulf

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author: