WIPO D2000-0413 · decided 18 September 2000
Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group
The parties
- Complainant
- Chanel, Inc.
- Respondent
- Estco Technology Group
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found chanelstore.com and chanelfashion.com confusingly similar to the famous CHANEL trademark, because adding the generic words "store" and "fashion" does not avoid confusion. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found Estco had no legitimate interest because it held no licence, and using the famous CHANEL trademark as a domain name to draw users to its database was infringing use. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) because Estco deliberately used the famous CHANEL trademark to mislead the public and profit from its goodwill. |
Why does Chanel matter for a complaint today?
In Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group, D2000-0413, a three-member WIPO panel ordered chanelstore.com and chanelfashion.com transferred to Chanel, Inc. Estco planned a fashion information portal at DesignerGlobe.com, with domain names made of designer trademarks pointing to it. The panel drew a line between talking about a brand and using the brand as the address. Estco's database could discuss Chanel stores and Chanel products. But Estco could not use the CHANEL trademark as a domain name to draw users in, just as a business could not put another company's trademark outside its shop to entice customers. Adding "store" or "fashion" did not help Estco on the first element. The WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8, says added descriptive terms do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For a business owner, the decision shows that a business plan, even a detailed one, does not protect a registrant who built it on famous trademarks. One limit: the panel noted that another panel, in Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation v. Estco Enterprises Ltd., D2000-0395, found no bad faith on the same business plan. The Chanel panel agreed with the dissent in that case.
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 1.8: Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark? 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.
- Section 3.1.4: How does a complainant prove that a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A three-member panel decided the case on 18 September 2000: Dennis A. Foster (presiding), Mark V. B. Partridge, David Bernstein.
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.