WIPO D2024-1157 · decided 1 May 2024
Malala Yousafzai v. syed haider
The parties
- Complainant
- Malala Yousafzai
- Respondent
- syed haider
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found unregistered trademark rights in the name Malala Yousafzai through her books, and found malalayousafzai.com identical to that unregistered trademark. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest, because the Respondent gave no evidence for his claim that he registered the domain name for a daughter of the same name. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith, because the Respondent registered the domain name after prominent 2011 events involving the Complainant and parked it with domain aftermarket brokers that offered it for sale. |
Why does Malala Yousafzai matter for a complaint today?
Malala Yousafzai, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014, recovered malalayousafzai.com more than 12 years after it was registered on December 24, 2011. She relied on unregistered rights. The panel, Andrew D. S. Lothian, held that fame alone is not enough. Section 1.5.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, which now cites this case, says the same: the name must be used as a source identifier in trade or commerce. Her name qualified because it sells books. The first, I am Malala, came out in 2013. Those rights likely arose after the domain name was registered, which normally defeats bad faith. Section 3.8.2 of the Overview makes an exception for registrations that follow significant media attention. The Respondent registered the domain name about a month after she received Pakistan's National Youth Peace Prize on November 24, 2011, then parked it with Sedo and later Dan.com for sale. He said it was for his daughter, also called Malala Yousafzai, but filed no birth certificate. If you are a public figure, your case rests on evidence: show commercial use of your name, such as books or products, and show when your public profile grew against the registration date.
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 1.5.2: Can a complainant show UDRP-relevant rights in a personal name? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 3.8.2: Can bad faith be found where a domain name was registered before the complainant acquired trademark rights?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Andrew D. S. Lothian, decided the case on 1 May 2024.
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.