Maharishi lost this domain name to RDNH

As of 01/07/2021

Legal battles are often unpredictable. How much you may hunch on a side, you can never be so sure. But it can surely be termed peculiar when even the ‘Maharishi’ lose. Such has been the case with US based The Maharishi Foundation, as reported by ArchyWorldys.

The Maharishi Foundation owns the brand ‘TM‘. Along with the domain name, it also owns the domain name Actually TM stands for ‘Transcendental Meditation‘ which is in accordance with the foundation’s main objective of imparting the ancient knowledge of meditation to everyone. 

However there is also a domain name that works to support mindfulness. The Maharishi Foundation found the domain name confusingly similar to their brand and considered it a typo. Since the operation of this domain name was similar to theirs, they applied for a UDRP

The respondent however was confident with the name and applied for a RDNH instead. The panel found out that the brand term TM was contained in the domain name, fulfilling the first criteria of UDRP. But the second criteria was not fulfilled as the respondent had a legal working social enterprise. The respondent also stated that WWTM stands for ‘Working With The Mind‘ and had no relation with

The panel in fact noted that both the parties had communicated before and the respondent had already presented their case and justification to the Maharishi Foundation. Hence, the panel decided for a RDNH instead. 

Now, who would have predicted that? I guess not even the Maharishis!


  1. Shawn Caron Avatar
    Shawn Caron

    Based on the evidence presented in the Complaint, it is certainly not clear to the Panel that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name solely to trade on the fame of the TM trademark.
    Further, it is clear to the Panel that, even on a cursory review of the Respondent’s website, the disputed name is an acronym for “Working With The Mind”. The Respondent’s website uses the name “Working With The Mind” in many places, including in the title. Prior to filing the Complainant, the Complainant and the Respondent communicated by email. The Respondent in this correspondence stated to the Complainant’s attorney: “You and the Foundation you represent can read more about WWTM on our website at” The Complainant had no reasonable basis to assert in the Complaint that nothing on the Respondent’s website suggests any proper use for adopting the WWTM name.

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