Wednesday, April 8, 2020


The Complainant manufactures textiles for medical and consumer markets, using the THERAFIRM trademark, in Canada since as early as 1998.  The Complainant alleges that the Registrant is offering imitation/counterfeit products, without the Complainant's authorization.

The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, because the Registrant registered five other Domain Names which it was not entitled to, and the Domain Name was offering third party products, competing with the Complainant.  The Panel further found that the use of the Complainant's trademark on the Domain Name's site further adds to customer confusion. 

You can read the decision here.


The Complainant is one of the world's leading providers of tax, audit and advisory services, using the KPMG trademark.  The Domain Name was registered in September, 2019, long after the Complainant established its billion dollar business.

The Registrant attempted to defraud one of KPMG's customers in a spear phishing scam in an attempt to obtain $500,000.00 USD to "complete the transaction for legal fees on a deal". 

Although the Domain Name did not link to an active website, the Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith pursuant to 3.5 of the Policy because the bad faith is linked to the perpetrator’s awareness at the time of the registration that a third party’s rights would be damaged (in this case - the spear phishing campaign).

You can read the decision here.

#424 -; snapchatprmtca; - TRANSFER GRANTED

Snap Inc. is the owner of the highly popular SNAPCHAT smartphone application, launched in 2011. The Registrant has been involved in two previous domain name disputes with the Complainant.  Previous panelists found the Registrant was offering counterfeit goods bearing the SNAPCHAT IP, and that the domain names were registered in bad faith.

The Panelist found that the Domain Names were registered in bad faith because the sites were redirecting to other sites competing with the Complainant's business, which creates a clear impression of causing confusion, disruption and hijacking of the Complainant's business.

You can read the decision here.