WIPO D2025-0545 · decided 4 April 2025
Zalto Glas GmbH v. DODSONCLAYTON
The parties
- Complainant
- Zalto Glas GmbH
- Respondent
- DODSONCLAYTON
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found zaltoglass.shop confusingly similar to the ZALTO trademark, because ZALTO is the leading element and the added term "glass" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest, because the site also sold third-party products, carried no disclaimer and offered substantially discounted prices, and the panel accepted it was a fake web store. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith because the Respondent knew of the ZALTO trademark, operated a fake web store, and showed a pattern of abusive ".shop" registrations in numerous earlier UDRP decisions. |
Why does Zalto matter for a complaint today?
Zalto Glas GmbH, an Austrian company, makes hand-blown wine glasses under the ZALTO trademark, registered in the European Union on October 21, 2009. It sells online at zalto.shop. On July 20, 2024, DODSONCLAYTON, listed in the United States, registered zaltoglass.shop. The site, titled "ZALTO", offered ZALTO glasses and other makers' products at substantially discounted prices. Zalto made a test purchase and says nothing arrived. The panelist, David Taylor, applied the Oki Data test, now in section 2.8.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. A reseller must sell only the trademarked goods and must disclose its relationship with the trademark holder. This site did neither. The panel accepted that it was a fake web store and ordered the transfer on April 4, 2025, seven weeks after Zalto filed on February 12, 2025. If you find a copy of your shop on a new domain name, do what Zalto did. Take screenshots of the site and its prices quickly, because this one had stopped resolving by the decision date. Make a test purchase and keep the records. Section 2.13.2 of the Overview says trap purchases are not necessary but are of additional assistance.
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 2.13: How do panels treat complainant claims of illegal activity in relation to potential respondent rights or legitimate interests?
- Section 3.1.4: How does a complainant prove that a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, David Taylor, decided the case on 4 April 2025.
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.