Controversial Decision: Panel Allows Typosquatting

In the intriguing world of domain disputes, a recent case has raised eyebrows and sparked debate among legal experts and trademark enthusiasts alike. The dispute revolves around the domain name <>, and it has left many wondering whether the rules governing such cases need a closer look.


Let’s dive into the facts. The Complainant, a healthcare products company with a history dating back to 1886, boasts a global presence, selling a range of healthcare products, including their renowned nutritional product, ENSURE. This product, introduced in 1973, has earned its place as the number one doctor-recommended brand for oral nutritional products worldwide.

The Complainant holds registered trademarks for ENSURE in numerous countries, including Vietnam, where they’ve been doing business since September 9, 2001. On the other side of the ring, we have the Respondent, who registered the disputed domain name <> on May 4, 2022, nearly two decades after the Complainant entered the Vietnamese market with its ENSURE mark. The Complainant is no small player in Vietnam, distributing hundreds of thousands of bottles of ENSURE products in the country.

Key Facts:

  1. The Complainant, a well-established healthcare products company, owns registered trademarks for ENSURE in many countries, including Vietnam.
  2. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <> long after the Complainant had established its presence in Vietnam.
  3. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the domain to divert consumers to unrelated products.
  4. The Respondent did not respond to the allegations, leading to a one-sided case.
  5. The Complainant cites previous UDRP decisions to support its claims.

Panel’s Decision:

This is where things take an unexpected turn. The Panel, led by Mr. Jeffrey J. Neuman, differs from previous UDRP cases in crucial ways. Unlike cases involving pay-per-click ads or the sale of similar products, the disputed domain <> leads users to a live website in Vietnamese that sells bird’s nests-related food items.

The Panel acknowledges that in many Asian countries, including Vietnam, bird’s nests are popular items sold as food, skincare products, and gifts. Importantly, the Complainant does not allege that it sells bird’s nests-related items.

The Panel’s decision hinges on whether the Respondent’s sale of bird’s nests-related food items infringes on the Complainant’s trademark rights in the ENSURE mark. This complex legal issue, the Panel argues, goes beyond the scope of the UDRP and should be decided by the courts, not through this domain dispute resolution process.


In a surprising twist, the Panel has ruled in favor of the Respondent, denying the Complainant’s case. This decision has stirred controversy, as it challenges the conventional understanding of domain disputes and raises questions about the UDRP’s ability to handle complex trademark issues.

This case serves as a reminder that the world of domain disputes is not always black and white. It highlights the need for a nuanced approach when determining the legitimacy of domain ownership, especially in cases involving unique circumstances like the sale of bird’s nests-related products.

While the debate continues, one thing is clear: the <> dispute has opened a new chapter in the ever-evolving landscape of online domains and trademarks, prompting a closer examination of the rules that govern them.

Read the full case here:


Join the Discussion

Discover more from Domain Magazine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Verified by ExactMetrics