WIPO D2026-1711 · decided 18 June 2026
HQ Gaming Events LTD v. Kevin Wells, Power Up Gaming
The parties
- Complainant
- HQ Gaming Events LTD
- Respondent
- Kevin Wells, Power Up Gaming
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found unregistered rights in TORONTO GAME EXPO from September 2022, held the phrase not descriptive as a whole, and found torontogameexpo.com identical to that unregistered trademark. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found no legitimate interest, because the Respondent's company is Power Up Gaming and the domain name redirected to powerupgaming.ca, which sells video game products overlapping with the Complainant's field. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith from the timing of registration, three years of passive holding, the overlap in fields of activity, and the redirect to the Respondent's own website. |
Why does Toronto Game Expo matter for a complaint today?
HQ Gaming Events LTD runs video game conventions in Ontario, Canada. It relied on common law trademark rights in TORONTO GAME EXPO. Its evidence was a venue contract with Exhibition Place signed in September 2022, the domain name torontogameexpo.ca registered on September 27, 2022, a Facebook post dated December 8, 2022, and promotional materials dated December 9, 2022. The panel did not rely on the venue contract by itself, but on the record as a whole. Kevin Wells, whose company is Power Up Gaming, registered torontogameexpo.com on December 9, 2022. His Response argued the phrase was descriptive and one day of publicity could not create trademark rights. The panelist, Eric Macramalla, rejected both points on June 18, 2026. He found the rights began with event planning in September 2022, and the phrase as a whole is capable of functioning as a source indicator. Section 1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 says a complainant must show its name became a "distinctive identifier" and that "conclusory allegations" will not normally suffice. If you trade under an unregistered name, keep dated contracts, posts and marketing material, or file a trademark application early. This Complainant won a 2026 case with documents from 2022.
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 1.3: What does a complainant need to show to successfully assert unregistered or common law trademark rights?
- Section 3.2: What circumstances further inform panel consideration of registration in bad faith?
- Section 3.3: Can the "passive holding" of a domain name support a finding of bad faith?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Eric Macramalla, decided the case on 18 June 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.