In a digital world filled with unique web addresses, a battle over a domain name can be more intense than you might think. Enter the intriguing case of IP ILLUSTRATION versus IPR ILLUSTRATION, a dispute that had domain enthusiasts on the edge of their seats. But who would ultimately claim the coveted domain <ipr-illustration.com>? Let’s dive into the story to find out!


Our story begins with the Complainant, a player in the world of patent and trademark illustration, who had been using the domain <ipillustration.com> since 2004. They went by various names like IP Illustration, IPI, and Intellectual Property Illustration and had secured the IP ILLUSTRATION trademark back in 2016. Enter the Respondent, who had been operating <ipr-illustration.com> since 2016, initially as an Intellectual Property law firm and later expanding into patent illustration and drafting services in 2007. The twist? The Respondent had previously owned <ip-illustration.com> but switched to the disputed domain after the Complainant expressed concerns about the former. The Complainant accused the Respondent of causing confusion and benefiting from their reputation.

Key Facts:

  1. The Complainant had been using <ipillustration.com> since 2004 and held the IP ILLUSTRATION trademark since 2016.
  2. The Respondent began operating <ipr-illustration.com> in 2016 and had used <ip-illustration.com> before that.
  3. The Respondent argued that the domain <ipr-illustration.com> was distinct enough to avoid confusion.
  4. Both parties claimed rights to the domain, but the Respondent argued they were making fair use of it.
  5. The Panel ultimately had to decide who had legitimate rights to the disputed domain.

Panel’s Decision:

Mr. Héctor Ariel Manoff, the Panelist in this intriguing case, had a challenging decision to make. He had to weigh the Complainant’s assertion of trademark rights against the Respondent’s claim of legitimate use. The Panel reached some crucial conclusions:

  • The Respondent was found to be making fair use of the disputed Domain Name, without any malicious intent to divert consumers or tarnish the trademark.
  • The Respondent had registered <ip-illustration.com> in 2015, a year before the Complainant’s trademark registration, which raised doubts about bad faith registration.
  • The Respondent’s transparency about their US company, “KA Filing LLC,” on their website at <ipr-illustration.com> showed good faith and an intention to prevent confusion.
  • The Complainant failed to prove that the Respondent intended to trade off their goodwill and reputation.


In a surprising turn of events, the Panel denied the Complaint, meaning that the Respondent could retain the <ipr-illustration.com> domain. This case teaches us that domain disputes can be complex, with the outcome hinging on factors like trademark rights and the intent behind domain registration. In the end, it was the Respondent’s fair use and transparent practices that swayed the Panel’s decision.

So, when it comes to the battle for a domain name, it’s not just about who registered it first but also about how it’s used and the intent behind it. The case of IP ILLUSTRATION versus IPR ILLUSTRATION is a reminder that the digital realm is full of surprises and legal intricacies.

Read the full case here: https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/2054361.htm


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