WIPO D2026-3346 · decided 24 September 2026
Redwood Credit Union v. Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC
The parties
- Complainant
- Redwood Credit Union
- Respondent
- Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found digitalredwoodcu.org confusingly similar to the REDWOOD CREDIT UNION trademark, because it contains the distinctive word "redwood" and the added "cu" and "digital" do not prevent that. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found Host Master, Njalla Okta LLC had no rights or legitimate interests, because impersonating Redwood Credit Union to phish confidential data from its customers can never confer them. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found bad faith, because the domain name matched the real login subdomain digital.redwoodcu.org except for one dot and hosted a copy of that login page. |
Why does Redwood Credit Union matter for a complaint today?
Redwood Credit Union is a California financial institution with 22 branches and 500,000 members. Its members log in to its online services at digital.redwoodcu.org, a subdomain of its main domain name redwoodcu.org. On June 27, 2026, someone registered digitalredwoodcu.org, which is the same address without the dot. The site copied the Redwood Credit Union logo, a stylized triangular tree on a green background, and showed a login form like the real one. The panel, Andrea Jaeger-Lenz, said a customer typing the address could easily omit the dot and then enter their credentials on the copy. The panel ordered the transfer on September 24, 2026, 54 days after the complaint was filed on August 1, 2026. Section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 lists phishing among the uses of a domain name that can be bad faith. Section 2.13.1 says phishing can never give a respondent rights or legitimate interests. If your customers log in on a subdomain, check whether the same words joined together are still free as a domain name. If they are, register that domain name yourself.
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 3.4: Can the use of a domain name for purposes other than hosting trademark-abusive content constitute bad faith?
- Section 2.13: How do panels treat complainant claims of illegal activity in relation to potential respondent rights or legitimate interests?
- Section 1.8: Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a descriptive or geographical term confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Andrea Jaeger-Lenz, decided the case on 24 September 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.