WIPO D2000-0477 · decided 20 July 2000
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico
The parties
- Complainant
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Respondent
- Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico (Kenneth J. Harvey)
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found all five domains confusingly similar to WAL-MART because adding a place name or "sucks" did not remove the similarity, and Kenneth Harvey's intent to extract payment weighed heavily. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel rejected Kenneth Harvey's free speech defence, because his demand for "domain name consultant" fees showed a commercial purpose outside fair use or legitimate noncommercial use under paragraph 4(c)(iii). |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(iv), and held that threats to disrupt Wal-Mart's business were bad faith even though Kenneth Harvey was not a competitor. |
Why does Walsucks matter for a complaint today?
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico, D2000-0477, decided July 20, 2000, the panel transferred five domains, among them walmartuksucks.com and walmartpuertorico.com. Kenneth Harvey registered them between May 13 and 17, 2000, after a WIPO panel ordered walmartcanada.com transferred to Wal-Mart in an earlier case, D2000-0150, decided May 2, 2000. On June 3, 2000 he emailed Wal-Mart asking to be paid as a "domain name consultant". The panel held that this demand showed a commercial motive, so the free speech defence failed. For a business owner, this decision is useful when a critic's site is a front for a demand for money. Keep every message that asks for payment. The limit is wide, and the panel stated it in the decision. The panel said the decision does not address legitimate criticism sites, and named walmartsucks.com as one it was not ruling on. Section 2.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 says panels tend to find a legitimate interest in a trademark-plus-sucks domain used for a genuine criticism site, if the use is fair and not misleading. A UDRP complaint against a genuine critic is likely to fail.
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 1.13: Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term ("sucks cases") confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 2.6: Does a criticism site support respondent rights or legitimate interests? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 3.1.1: How does a complainant prove that a respondent has registered or acquired a domain name primarily to sell the domain name to the complainant (or its competitor) for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's costs related to the domain name? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Frederick M. Abbott, decided the case on 20 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.