## Facts

- DreamWorks Animation LLC owned worldwide trademark rights in DREAMWORKS and operated related domain names, including dreamworks.com and dreamworksanimation.com.
- Phivos Morides / Phoebus Morides registered the domain names dreamworks-europe.com and dreamworks-worldwide.com through separate registrars.
- The disputed domains incorporated DREAMWORKS in full and added only descriptive terms (“europe,” “worldwide”) plus the “.com” gTLD.
- Visitors to the disputed domains were redirected to a site branded “Dreamm Group Worldwide” at dreamm-group.com, associated with Respondent’s business activities in entertainment-related fields.
- Respondent asserted connections to entities using “Dreamworks” in their names, but evidence indicated those entities were defunct, improperly formed, or non-operational.
- DreamWorks filed a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) seeking transfer of the disputed domain names.

## Issues

1. Whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which DreamWorks has rights under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i).
2. Whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii).
3. Whether the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(iii).

## Decision

- The panel found the disputed domain names confusingly similar to DreamWorks’ DREAMWORKS mark.
- The panel found Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
- The panel found Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith, including by redirecting users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain through likely confusion as to affiliation.
- The panel ordered transfer of dreamworks-europe.com and dreamworks-worldwide.com to DreamWorks Animation LLC.

## Legal Principles

- Under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i), incorporating a complainant’s trademark in its entirety into a domain name typically establishes confusing similarity; added geographic or descriptive terms generally do not prevent confusion, and the “.com” gTLD is disregarded in the comparison.
- Under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii), the complainant may prevail where the respondent is not authorized, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and does not use it for a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial/fair use.
- Under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(iii) and ¶ 4(b)(iv), bad faith is shown where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to attract users to its site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.
- Knowledge of a well-known mark at registration, combined with diversionary redirection and unsupported claims of independent “Dreamworks” business identity, supports an inference of bad-faith registration and use.

## Conclusion

Applying the UDRP’s three-part test, the panel concluded that Respondent’s DREAMWORKS-formative domains were confusingly similar to DreamWorks’ mark, lacked any credible legitimate basis, and were used to divert traffic through likely confusion; the proper remedy was transfer of both domain names to DreamWorks Animation LLC.


DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. v. Morides (WIPO) (WIPO Case No. D2012-0054, 2012)