WIPO D2025-1493 · decided 17 June 2025
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. asdasd sadads
The parties
- Complainant
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
- Respondent
- asdasd sadads
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found ericssonsupport.com confusingly similar to the ERICSSON trademarks, because the trademark is recognizable in the domain and the added term "support" does not prevent that finding. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest. The respondent filed no response, and the composition of ericssonsupport.com carried a risk of implied affiliation with Ericsson. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith, because ERICSSON is well known, the registrant gave the false name "asdasd sadads", and the links to pornographic apps tarnished the ERICSSON trademarks. |
Why does Ericsson matter for a complaint today?
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, the Swedish telecoms company founded in 1876, obtained transfer of ericssonsupport.com, which was registered on August 8, 2024. The panel, Kiyoshi Tsuru, applied the standard rule that a trademark followed by a descriptive word is still confusingly similar if the trademark is recognizable. Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 states the rule, and adds that the extra word can matter under the second and third elements. Here it counted against the respondent. "Support" is a word a customer expects to see on the brand owner's own help pages, so the panel found the domain carried a risk of implied affiliation with Ericsson. For a business owner, a domain that adds a service word such as "support" to your trademark points customers toward you, and that helps your complaint. Ericsson relied on registrations in Australia, the United States and the European Union. The Australian registration from 1978 mattered, because the respondent gave an Australian address. The limit: the panel also relied on the fame of ERICSSON and on the pornographic content. A less known trademark, or a site selling genuine goods, would need closer argument on 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 1.8: Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
- Section 2.5: What are some core factors UDRP panels look at in assessing fair use?
- Section 3.12: Can tarnishment form a basis for finding bad faith?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Kiyoshi Tsuru, decided the case on 17 June 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, 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.