WIPO D2025-4920 · decided 15 January 2026
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. one world one goal
The parties
- Complainant
- Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
- Respondent
- one world one goal
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found legalshieldleads.com confusingly similar to the LEGALSHIELD trademark, United States Registration No. 4354563, because the whole trademark is reproduced and the added term "leads" does not prevent confusing similarity. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel rejected the nominative fair use defence, because the website used a shield logo and the line "Your Partner in LegalShield Growth" and did not prominently disclose its lack of connection. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv), because the domain name and website were at best ambiguous about any connection with the Complainant, and the late, small disclaimer showed intent to benefit from confusion. |
Why does LegalShield matter for a complaint today?
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. has sold legal expense plans under the LEGALSHIELD trademark since 1999. On June 9, 2025, a registrant in India called one world one goal registered legalshieldleads.com. The site offered to sell customer leads to the Complainant's associates. The Respondent filed a Response on December 11, 2025. It argued nominative fair use: it said it used the LEGALSHIELD trademark referentially, to describe its target audience. The panelist, Jeremy Speres, applied the Oki Data test, now set out in section 2.8.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. One of its four requirements is that the site must "accurately and prominently disclose" the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder. Before the Complaint, the site had no disclaimer at all. After the Complaint, the Respondent added one in small text at the very bottom of the page. The panel found it easy to miss and treated it as an acknowledgement of the risk of confusion. If your business serves another brand's customers or resellers, put a clear disclaimer at the top of the site from the first day, and do not use a logo similar to the brand's logo. A full Response did not save a site that looked official.
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 3.7: How does a disclaimer on the webpage to which a disputed domain name resolves impact a panel's assessment of bad faith?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Jeremy Speres, decided the case on 15 January 2026.
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.