WIPO D2024-2317 · decided 9 August 2024
Grundfos Holding A/S v. Armen Yarmaloyan
The parties
- Complainant
- Grundfos Holding A/S
- Respondent
- Armen Yarmaloyan
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found mygrundfos.com confusingly similar to the GRUNDFOS trademark, because the whole trademark appears in the domain and the prefix "my" does not prevent confusing similarity. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest. The site failed the Oki Data test, because "Official representative of Grundfos" was not an accurate disclosure of a lapsed, non-exclusive distributorship. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith registration, because the distributor registered the domain "on my personal initiative" without asking Grundfos, and knew it was not entitled to present itself as Grundfos. |
Why does Grundfos matter for a complaint today?
Grundfos Holding A/S, the Danish pump maker, used the UDRP against its own former distributor in Armenia and Georgia. The respondent, Armen Yarmaloyan of Dyurlang LLC, registered mygrundfos.com on December 22, 2022, while Dyurlang held a non-exclusive letter of authority from Grundfos valid until July 27, 2023. The panel, Andrew D. S. Lothian, held that any right the distributor had ended with that letter, because paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy asks whether the respondent "has" rights now. The harder question was registration in bad faith, since the domain was registered during the relationship. The panel found bad faith for three reasons. The distributor admitted in writing that it registered the domain on its own initiative. Grundfos objected in April 2023, as soon as it found out. And the letter of authority gave no permission to register domain names. For a business owner, this decision is a reason to put domain name rules in every distribution agreement. The panel said an express permission or prohibition would go directly to good or bad faith. The limit is tolerance. The panel noted that a trademark owner who condoned a distributor's domain during the contract may be unable to prove registration in bad faith.
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 2.8: How do panels assess claims of nominative (fair) use by resellers or distributors?
- Section 2.5: What are some core factors UDRP panels look at in assessing fair use?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Andrew D. S. Lothian, decided the case on 9 August 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, 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.