JD Sports Loses UDRP Over JDSport.com – Ends Up Trying to Reclaim a Domain It Didn’t Own

In a recent UDRP decision, global sportswear retailer JD Sports Fashion plc attempted to recover the domain nameJDSport.com—only to be denied, despite its established brand presence and ownership of the plural formJDSports.com.

The Parties

Complainant: JD Sports Fashion plc, a UK-based multinational retail group with over 4,500 stores in 36 countries.

Respondent: Mira Holdings, Inc., a U.S.-based domain investor with a portfolio of 1,000+ generic names.

Case Background

JD Sports filed a complaint with WIPO in January 2025, claiming that JDSport.com was confusingly similar to its trademark “JD SPORTS.” The company argued that dropping the “s” was a common typo and could mislead consumers. JD Sports also pointed to the domain’s use on a parked page displaying pay-per-click (PPC) ads as evidence of bad faith.

However, the respondent had purchased JDSport.com for $799 in a public auction in August 2024, well after it had expired. Mira Holdings emphasized that “JD” and “sport” are both generic terms and that it owns multiple similar domains such as absport.com and jdenterprises.com. The company had not targeted JD Sports and had never approached it with an offer to sell.

Notably, JD Sports itself had purchasedJDSports.comin 2010 for $10,000 via Sedo, indicating that the brand had previously navigated the aftermarket to secure domains.

The Decision

A three-member WIPO panel found that while the domain was confusingly similar to JD Sports’ trademark, the complainant failed to prove bad faith. The panel noted that JD Sports lacked sufficient global recognition to warrant a presumption of bad faith registration and that purchasing a domain at auction—without targeting a specific brand—is not inherently abusive.

The panel ultimately ruledin favor of the respondent, denying the domain transfer request. A claim of reverse domain name hijacking was also rejected.