PiersMorgan.com domain name dispute, UDRP ruling found "bad faith holding"

British media celebrity Piers Morgan recently filed a UDRP complaint with WIPO for the domain name PiersMorgan.com on the grounds of "bad faith occupation". Since the domain name was registered in 2005, it has been used to display advertising pages and make profits from it, not Piers Morgan himself.

According to reports, independent adjudicator Nick J. Gardner determined that:

The domain name is exactly the same as the complainant's name, which constitutes an obvious possibility of confusion;

The registrant has no legal rights or legitimate interests;

The purpose of registration is to make a profit or sell to Morgan, and there is "bad faith registration and use".

In the end, the domain name was ruled to be transferred to Piers Morgan, and the rights protection was successful.

Standards for identifying "bad faith holding"

According to the UDRP core standards, the complainant needs to prove that the registered domain name is exactly the same as his trademark or name, the registrant has no legitimate rights, and there is "bad faith registration and possession" ε. In this case, the registrant made profits by collecting rent and other means for advertising monetization, which meets the "profit-making" situation, and the adjudicator determined it as "bad faith holding".

Comparison with similar cases

This case is similar to UDRP cases under the names of other celebrities, such as Nicole Kidman, Nick Cannon, etc., who all won in the same type, and the ruling structure is consistent - the domain name is the same as the celebrity's name, used for commercial traffic profit, and there is no legitimate interest.

However, there are also cases such as Sting and Sam Francis, where the ruling did not determine that the celebrity won due to fair use or common names.

The UDRP ruling of PiersMorgan.com proves that even if the domain name is registered for a long time, if it is used for advertising hosting and traffic monetization, and the degree of overlap with the celebrity's name is high, it still faces the risk of being revoked. This case emphasizes the importance of "name trademark rights" in UDRP, and clearly warns future domain name professional investment and registration behavior: if there is no reasonable use purpose, it is only for profit, it is very likely to be ruled as "bad faith registration holding".