WIPO D2022-1068 · decided 23 May 2022
Cereal Docks S.P.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, Alex Anastasis
The parties
- Complainant
- Cereal Docks S.P.A.
- Respondent
- Domains By Proxy, LLC, Alex Anastasis
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found cerealdocks.net confusingly similar to the CEREAL DOCKS and CEREALDOCKS trademarks, because the domain contains CEREALDOCKS in full and the .net ending is disregarded. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest, because Cereal Docks gave no licence, the respondent's name does not resemble the domain, and the respondent filed no response. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith, because the respondent used cerealdocks.net for emails impersonating staff of Cereal Docks Organic S.R.L. with false bank details, and one customer paid EUR 96,500. |
Why does Cereal Docks matter for a complaint today?
Cereal Docks S.p.A. is the parent of an Italian group that processes over 2.5 million tons of grains and seeds a year, and its official website is at cerealdocks.it. Someone registered cerealdocks.net on February 7, 2022 and used it to send emails impersonating staff of a subsidiary, Cereal Docks Organic S.R.L. The emails gave revised bank details for invoices, and one customer transferred EUR 96,500. Cereal Docks sent a cease-and-desist letter on February 23, 2022, filed its complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center on March 29, 2022, and had a transfer order dated May 23, 2022. The panel, Miguel B. O'Farrell, held that using a domain to commit fraud is bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. For a business owner, the point is that your trademark in another extension can be used against your customers without any website at all. Section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 covers email use of this kind. The limit is the remedy. Under paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, a panel can only order cancellation or transfer of the domain. The decision does not recover the EUR 96,500.
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 3.4: Can the use of a domain name for purposes other than hosting trademark-abusive content constitute bad faith?
- Section 2.13: How do panels treat complainant claims of illegal activity in relation to potential respondent rights or legitimate interests?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Miguel B. O'Farrell, decided the case on 23 May 2022.
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.