WIPO D2000-0662 · decided 19 September 2000
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale
The parties
- Complainant
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Respondent
- Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel held wal-martsucks.com confusingly similar because a domain name that includes the trademark meets the first element regardless of other terms, even though confusion was unlikely. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found Richard MacLeod had no legitimate interest because, before the proceeding began, he used the site only to sell it, and his later criticism came too late. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith because Richard MacLeod admitted registering to sell, registered under the name "For Sale", and never denied offering the domain name for sale. |
Why does Wal-Martsucks matter for a complaint today?
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, D2000-0662, the panel ordered transfer of wal-martsucks.com. The panel accepted that no reasonable speaker of modern English would expect Wal-Mart to identify itself with wal-martsucks.com, and that Wal-Mart Stores had no evidence of confusion. It still found the first element met. The panel held that the first element compares the trademark and the domain name directly, and is met when the domain name includes the trademark. Questions about real confusion belong under the second and third elements. The WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.13, now takes the same position: a "sucks" domain name is confusingly similar for standing purposes, and the merits are decided under the other two elements. For a business owner facing a "sucks" domain name, this means you will usually clear the first element. Winning depends on the rest. Richard MacLeod lost because he admitted registering to sell, and did not deny offering the domain name for sale at $530,000. A genuine criticism site is a different case. Section 2.6 of the Overview says panels tend to find a legitimate interest where a trademark plus a derogatory term is used for genuine, fair criticism that is not misleading.
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 1.7: What is the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element? 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.
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, David H. Bernstein, decided the case on 19 September 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.