A dispute over the domain name thermowood.com was reheard by a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel due to new information, but the outcome remained unchanged. In 2023, Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry, the trademark holder for Thermowood, filed a UDRP against the domain, which was registered to a distributor of one of the Complainant’s licensees.
Panelist Warwick A. Rothnie initially ruled that the domain was not registered in bad faith since it seemed tied to the distributorship. However, Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry refiled the case in 2025 after the distributorship was canceled and provided a more detailed distributor agreement, arguing that the distributor lacked the right to register the domain.
The WIPO panel accepted the refiled case, considering the new information pivotal. Despite expectations that the outcome wouldn’t change, the panel scrutinized the less-redacted distributorship agreement that wasn’t previously submitted. The panel emphasized that the agreement didn’t explicitly prohibit the distributor from registering the domain.
Ultimately, the panel upheld its decision that the domain was not registered or used in bad faith and dismissed the case. It also refrained from finding reverse domain name hijacking, indicating that while Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry might have a legal argument, it didn’t meet the UDRP criteria.
Domain disputes often involve intricate legal nuances, especially concerning licensee and distributor relationships. In this case, the termination of the distributorship and the subsequent domain claim underscore the complex interplay between contractual rights and domain ownership.
Andrew Allemann, a domain industry expert, highlighted the significance of contractual obligations in such disputes. He noted that even if an agreement is terminated, the initial good faith registration of a domain remains a crucial factor in determining bad faith.
While Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry pursued the case in hopes of reclaiming the domain, the WIPO panel’s decision underscores the importance of robust evidence and legal grounds in domain disputes. The case serves as a reminder of the intricate legal landscape surrounding domain ownership and trademark rights.
This case sheds light on the evolving dynamics of domain disputes and the rigorous standards applied by WIPO panels in adjudicating such matters. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, domain name disputes are likely to become increasingly complex, requiring a nuanced understanding of intellectual property rights and domain ownership.
For domain industry observers, this case exemplifies the intricate legal considerations that underpin domain disputes and the pivotal role of evidence and legal arguments in WIPO proceedings. As the domain name ecosystem evolves, staying abreast of such developments is crucial for stakeholders navigating the complexities of domain ownership and intellectual property rights.
📰 Related Articles
- UDRP Panel Rules in Favor of Regal Rexnord in Domain Dispute
- 2024 WIPO Report: Domain Name Dispute Trends and Impact
- Vietnam’s Decree 147 Enhances Domain Name Dispute Resolution
- UDRP Ruling on OneTab Domain Dispute Reveals Policy Limitations
- Thermomix Domain Dispute Reveals Naming Strategy Oversight