WIPO D2000-0003 · decided 18 February 2000
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows
The parties
- Complainant
- Telstra Corporation Limited
- Respondent
- Nuclear Marshmallows
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found the telstra part of telstra.org identical to the many TELSTRA trademark registrations held by Telstra Corporation, and the whole domain name confusingly similar to them. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found Nuclear Marshmallows had no rights or legitimate interests, because Telstra Corporation gave no licence and TELSTRA appears to be an invented word no trader would choose innocently. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith registration, and held that passive holding of telstra.org, which hosted no website, was bad faith use given the strong TELSTRA reputation and false contact details. |
Why does Telstra matter for a complaint today?
The panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003, decided that a domain name can be "used in bad faith" even when it shows nothing at all. The domain name telstra.org did not resolve to any website, and there was no offer to sell it. The panel still ordered transfer. It read the words "is being used in bad faith" as covering inaction, and pointed out that the list in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy is "without limitation". For a business owner, this means you do not have to wait for a squatter to launch a website or send a demand before filing a UDRP complaint. But the panel was clear that the answer depends on the facts. It relied on five circumstances, including the strong reputation of TELSTRA and the false contact details the respondent gave its registrar. The WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3, now lists similar factors. The Overview also says that the more distinctive the trademark, the less plausible any good faith use. So passive holding arguments work best for an invented or famous trademark like TELSTRA. For a trademark that is also an ordinary word, an unused domain name is much harder to win.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 3.3: Can the "passive holding" of a domain name support a finding of bad faith? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Andrew F. Christie, decided the case on 18 February 2000.
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova, who worked at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center from 2018 to 2021 and sits as a domain name panelist at the Czech Arbitration Court. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026. Full background.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.