WIPO D2015-0703 · decided 22 June 2015
Wirecard AG v. Telepathy Inc., Development Services
The parties
- Complainant
- Wirecard AG
- Respondent
- Telepathy Inc., Development Services
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found boon.com identical to Wirecard AG's registered BOON trade mark once the domain suffix is disregarded, so the first element was met. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel did not decide this element because the complaint clearly failed on bad faith, given the 16-year gap between registration and Wirecard AG's trade mark filing. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel held boon.com could not have been registered in bad faith in October 1998, because Wirecard AG's earliest possible trade mark right dated from its April 15, 2014 filing. |
Why does Wirecard matter for a complaint today?
In Wirecard AG v. Telepathy Inc., Development Services, D2015-0703, decided June 22, 2015, a three-member WIPO panel denied the complaint over boon.com and found reverse domain name hijacking. Telepathy registered boon.com in October 1998. Wirecard AG was incorporated on May 6, 1999 and filed its BOON Community Trade Mark on April 15, 2014. A domain registered before the complainant had any trademark right cannot have been registered in bad faith, because the registrant could not have had that right in mind. Section 3.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 states the same rule, with a narrow exception for registrations aimed at a complainant's nascent rights. The panel also held that Telepathy was entitled to ask any price when Wirecard AG made an unsolicited USD 500 offer, since there was no evidence Telepathy had registered the domain with Wirecard AG in mind. For a business owner, the lesson is to check the domain's registration date before anything else. If it predates your trademark, a UDRP complaint will normally fail. Filing one through a lawyer anyway risks a published finding that you abused the process, as Wirecard AG received here.
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 3.8: Can bad faith be found where a domain name was registered before the complainant acquired trademark rights? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 4.16: In what circumstances will panels issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)? 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 three-member panel decided the case on 22 June 2015: Adam Taylor (presiding), Torsten Bettinger, Tony Willoughby.
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.