Celebrity chef Francis Mallmann loses UDRP dispute case, ownership of FrancisMallmann.com remains unchanged

Recently, the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ruled on the UDRP lawsuit filed by Uruguayan celebrity chef Francis Mallmann against the domain name FrancisMallmann.com, dismissing his complaint request, and the domain name is still retained by the original holder. This case has attracted attention because it involves celebrity domain name authorization disputes and "passive holding" issues.

Case background

The disputed domain name FrancisMallmann.com was registered on March 16, 2010, but has not been put into use for a long time. The complainant Francis Mallmann (real name Francisco Jose Mallmann Sanchez) is an internationally renowned chef who owns the EU registered trademark "FRANCIS MALLMANN" (registered in 2017), and claims that his name right has formed an unregistered trademark right through commercial activities such as TV programs, restaurants, and books before the domain name was registered.

Core dispute points

1. Authorized registration dispute

The respondent Paaren Mihtla (Pausitivemedia, Canada) claimed that the domain name was registered by his partner Deanna Justesen at the request of the complainant. Evidence shows that the complainant's son mentioned in an email to Justesen in 2024 that "my father suggested contacting you to inquire about the ownership of the domain name", and Justesen also responded that the domain name was "ordered to protect". The expert group believes that the existing evidence shows that the domain name registration was initially authorized by the complainant, so it does not constitute "bad faith registration".

2. Malicious registration and use

The expert group pointed out that the complainant failed to overturn the "initial authorization" claim, and passive holding behavior does not constitute bad faith in the context of authorization. The respondent had proposed to transfer the domain name for 1,500 Canadian dollars (covering the renewal cost of 15 years), but the complainant refused to negotiate and insisted on litigation.

Ruling result

Andrew DS Lothian, the only expert group member, ruled that the complainant could not prove that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith, so the complaint was dismissed. The expert group recommended that the two parties resolve the issue through private negotiations, but the domain name was not forcibly transferred in the end.