WIPO D2011-1134 · decided 24 September 2011
Karen Millen Fashions Limited v. Danny Cullen
The parties
- Complainant
- Karen Millen Fashions Limited
- Respondent
- Danny Cullen
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found karenmillenoutletonline.com confusingly similar to the KAREN MILLEN trade mark, because the words "outletonline" and the .com suffix are not distinctive. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel held that Karen Millen failed to prove the goods were counterfeit, so the site could be a genuine or grey-market reseller and the second element failed despite the default. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel did not decide this element because Karen Millen had already failed on the second element, though it noted the same considerations tend to apply to bad faith. |
Why does Karen Millen matter for a complaint today?
In Karen Millen Fashions Limited v. Danny Cullen, D2011-1134, decided September 24, 2011, the panel denied a complaint over karenmillenoutletonline.com although Danny Cullen never responded. Karen Millen said the clothing on the site had been "verified as counterfeit" and that customers had complained, but filed no evidence. The panel gave Karen Millen 7 days to supply it, then a further 7 days, and received nothing. Karen Millen told the panel it no longer made "trap" purchases. The panel held that an accusation of dishonesty, such as selling counterfeits, will not be accepted on the complainant's word alone. Without proof, the site could be selling genuine or grey-market goods under the Oki Data test, now set out in section 2.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Prove counterfeiting before you file. Section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 lists evidence panels accept, such as prices disproportionately below market value, distorted logos, copied product images and consumer complaints, and says trap purchases help. The limit is that this decision turned on an empty record. The panel said that with evidence of counterfeiting it would have had little hesitation in finding the offering was not bona fide.
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 2.13: How do panels treat complainant claims of illegal activity in relation to potential respondent rights or legitimate interests? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 2.8: How do panels assess claims of nominative (fair) use by resellers or distributors? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 4.3: Does a respondent's default/failure to respond to the complainant's contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, William P. Knight, decided the case on 24 September 2011.
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.