WIPO D2024-2027 · decided 24 July 2024
Medaxis AG v. Arash Ansari
The parties
- Complainant
- Medaxis AG
- Respondent
- Arash Ansari
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found medaxis.com identical to the MEDAXIS trademark, held under Swiss Registration P-480203 and International Registration 754938, because the domain name reproduces the whole trademark. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest, because "medaxis" is not a dictionary term and being a domainer does not give rights in every domain name in a portfolio. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith, because the Respondent, who claimed to be a professional domainer, did not say he made any trademark or Google search before buying a coined-looking name at auction. |
Why does Medaxis matter for a complaint today?
Medaxis AG, a Swiss medical technology company, has held MEDAXIS registrations since January 12, 2001. medaxis.com was first registered on July 26, 2003. Arash Ansari, based in Amsterdam, bought it at an auction of expired domain names, most likely in 2021. He quoted USD 42,000 to one enquiry and USD 35,000 to another. In his Response he said "medaxis" combines "med" and "axis", and that domaining is a legitimate business. The three-member panel, with John Swinson presiding, rejected both points on July 24, 2024. It accepted he may not have known of Medaxis. It still found bad faith, because a professional domainer buying a name that looks invented should run at least a trademark search or a Google search, and he did not say he ran any. Section 3.2.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 states the same principle: a registrant who deliberately fails to screen against available online databases is responsible for the resulting abusive registration. If your brand is a coined word and an investor is reselling the matching .com, this decision supports a complaint even where the seller says he never heard of you.
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 3.2.3: What circumstances further inform panel consideration of registration in bad faith?
- 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?
- Section 3.8.1: Can bad faith be found where a domain name was registered before the complainant acquired trademark rights?
Who decided the case?
A three-member panel decided the case on 24 July 2024: John Swinson (presiding), Anne-Virginie La Spada, The Hon Neil Brown K.C..
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.