WIPO D2000-0190 · decided 6 July 2000
Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc. and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers
The parties
- Complainant
- Bridgestone Firestone, Inc.
- Respondent
- Jack Myers
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found bridgestone-firestone.net identical or confusingly similar to the complainants' trademarks, and Jack Myers admitted that the domain name used the BRIDGESTONE and FIRESTONE trademarks. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found a legitimate interest: Jack Myers used the domain name for a noncommercial site criticising the complainants, with a disclaimer and a .net extension, which was legitimate noncommercial and fair use. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found no bad faith. An offer on the site to transfer the domain name if pension payments were made was not the primary purpose, which was free speech criticism. |
Why does Bridgestone Firestone matter for a complaint today?
In Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0190, the panel refused to transfer bridgestone-firestone.net. Jack Myers, a former Firestone employee in a pension dispute with the companies since 1990, used the site to criticise them. The panel held that a critic does not need a domain name like trademarksucks.com to signal criticism. Jack Myers had used .net, while the companies held bridgestone-firestone.com, and his home page carried a disclaimer. The panel treated noncommercial criticism as fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the UDRP. An offer on the site to hand over the domain name if the pension was paid did not change the result. This decision is now out of step with the WIPO Overview 3.1. Section 2.6.2 says panels have increasingly found that a right to criticise does not extend to a domain name identical to the trademark, because such a domain name risks impersonation. Section 2.6.3 says a domain name adding a derogatory term, such as trademarksucks.com, is more likely to be protected. bridgestone-firestone.net contains nothing but the complainants' trademarks, so a company in the same position today would cite section 2.6.2.
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 2.6: Does a criticism site support respondent rights or legitimate interests? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 2.5: What are some core factors UDRP panels look at in assessing fair use? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Dana Haviland, decided the case on 6 July 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. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026.
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.