WIPO D2006-0560 · decided 5 July 2006
Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods
What happened afterwards
The respondent's president, Jeff Burgar, had won Bruce Springsteen v. Jeff Burgar, D2000-1532, in 2001 on similar facts. The Tom Cruise panel instead followed the decisions brought against him by Celine Dion, Kevin Spacey and Michael Crichton, which rejected the same celebrity portal defence.
The parties
- Complainant
- Tom Cruise
- Respondent
- Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | Alberta Hot Rods expressly did not challenge Tom Cruise's trademark rights or the similarity, so the panel accepted the pleadings and found tomcruise.com identical to the TOM CRUISE mark. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel held that sending tomcruise.com to the Celebrity 1000 site was not fair use, because the site existed mainly to channel visitors to third-party advertising. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii) because of Alberta Hot Rods' pattern of registering celebrity names, and held that Tom Cruise's 10-year delay did not bar the complaint. |
Why does Tom Cruise matter for a complaint today?
In Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, D2006-0560, a three-member WIPO panel transferred tomcruise.com on July 5, 2006. The domain was registered on November 6, 1996, and Tom Cruise filed his complaint on May 4, 2006. Alberta Hot Rods argued that the 10-year delay showed Tom Cruise did not believe it was acting in bad faith. The panel disagreed. It found no meaningful UDRP precedent for refusing relief because of delay, and no evidence that Alberta Hot Rods had suffered because of the wait. Consent would matter, but there was no evidence that Tom Cruise had approved or condoned the use. Section 4.17 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 takes the same position: panels have declined to adopt laches, and delay alone does not bar a complaint. If you have known about a squatter for years, this is the decision to cite. The limit is reliance. Section 4.17 notes that delay can make a case harder to prove, particularly where the respondent shows it relied on the delay to its detriment. Do not tell a registrant, even informally, that you accept its use, because the panel said evidence of consent would be relevant.
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 4.17: Does "delay" in bringing a complaint bar a complainant from filing a case under the UDRP? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 2.7: Does a fan (or informational) site support respondent rights or legitimate interests in a domain name? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 3.1.2: What constitutes a pattern of conduct of preventing a trademark holder from reflecting its mark in a domain name? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A three-member panel decided the case on 5 July 2006: Frederick M. Abbott (presiding), Sally M. Abel, David 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, who worked at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center from 2018 to 2021 and sits as a domain name panelist at the Czech Arbitration Court. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026. Full background.
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.