WIPO D2000-0847 · decided 12 October 2000
Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"
The parties
- Complainant
- Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna
- Respondent
- Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | Dan Parisi did not dispute that madonna.com is identical or confusingly similar to the MADONNA trademark, so the panel found the first element met. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel held that a website trading on Madonna's fame is not a bona fide offering, and that a Tunisian trademark obtained only to protect the domain created no legitimate interest. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found the only plausible explanation was an intent to trade on Madonna's fame for commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv), and held that the site's disclaimer did not cure that. |
Why does Madonna matter for a complaint today?
In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847, a three-member WIPO panel ordered madonna.com transferred on October 12, 2000. Dan Parisi bought the domain for $20,000 in May 1998 and used it for an adult website with a notice saying it was not affiliated with Madonna the singer. The panel held that the disclaimer was not enough. Internet users may ignore or misunderstand a disclaimer, and it does nothing about the initial interest confusion that brings them to the site. The panel also rejected a Tunisian trademark that Dan Parisi admitted he obtained only to protect his interest in the domain. Section 2.12 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 states the same rule: a respondent's trademark obtained primarily to get around the complainant's rights does not create a legitimate interest. For a business owner today, a disclaimer or a quick foreign trademark filing will not save a domain chosen to trade on your name. The limit is that the panel relied on the absence of any plausible explanation. The word "madonna" has a dictionary meaning, and a registrant who used it for that meaning would have a different 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 3.7: How does a disclaimer on the webpage to which a disputed domain name resolves impact a panel's assessment of bad faith? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 2.12: Does a respondent's trademark corresponding to a domain name automatically generate rights or legitimate interests? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 4.2: What is the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A three-member panel decided the case on 12 October 2000: Mark V.B. Partridge (presiding), James W. Dabney, David E. Sorkin.
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.