Earlier this year, WIPO handled the <uniservmarine.com> case (WIPO Case No. D2025-3314). According to the panelist, the complainant may have been successful had it shown more evidence of unregistered trademark rights. The complainant’s failure to do so had a ripple effect across each UDRP element.
This case emphasises the higher threshold for complainants when relying on unregistered rights. The need for tangible and convincing evidence remains paramount.
This article aims to help brand owners navigate the tricky issue of filing UDRP complaints without registered trademark rights.
Under the UDRP, complainants must satisfy the first element by either:
Such fulfilment acts as standing to file a complaint.
When complainants lack a registered trademark, they face the difficult task of demonstrating unregistered rights. This requires presenting arguments that their mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services.
In simpler words, they must show the mark has acquired secondary meaning. This is what the complainant attempted to demonstrate in this case.
The complainant is Uniservice Unisafe, a supplier of marine chemicals and provider of maritime and marine vessel services based in Italy.
The company did not possess a registered trademark and claimed unregistered rights to the terms “Uniservice”, “Unisafe”, and “Uniservicemarine”. They mainly relied on their longstanding use of their official site <uniservicemarine.com>, as well as search engine results for their company.
The complainant stated that such evidence highlighted their market recognition and showed unregistered rights in UNISERVICEMARINE.
On the other hand, the respondent, director of Uniserv Marine Solutions, argued that it operates a legitimate business, offering vessel and ship repair and tank cleaning services. The company was incorporated in India in 2021 (four years before the domain name’s registration) and so claimed to be commonly known by the name corresponding to the disputed domain name <uniservmarine.com>.
When considering the evidence submitted for the first element, sole panelist Andrew D. S. Lothian found issue with the complainant’s submissions.
The complainant’s recent website screenshots were clearly insufficient to show the longstanding use of the brand. Archived screenshots with clear timestamps could have shown such use, as it would have created a clear timeline of the complainant’s operations under the UNISERVICEMARINE term.
For example, when dealing with an unregistered right case, internet traffic statistics can be particularly useful to show activity and public recognition of said brand.
The complainant also submitted search engine results, but these were also not enough to prove unregistered rights. The panelist mentioned that such results did not demonstrate anything other than potential good search engine optimisation at the time the search was carried out.
For those reasons, the panelist considered that the complainant failed to submit enough evidence to demonstrate unregistered rights in the term UNISERVICEMARINE. Evidence focused only on the present day rather than historical and past use, and did not contain any independent evidence of consumer association.
In addition, evidence of third-party media publications and articles, as well as marketing materials, is key to showing that the mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the company’s services.
Interestingly, the panelist stated this was ‘something of a close call’. The age of the complainant’s main website and the duration of their business operations suggested that the complainant may have successfully shown common law rights if the appropriate evidence had been presented.
For this reason, the panelist went on to discuss the second and third elements. This is somewhat unusual, as panelists often do not consider other elements if the complaining party fails the first one.
Addressing the second and third elements, the panelist also considered that the complainant did not meet their burden. Just like the first element, the main issues concerned the lack of tangible evidence to prove that the respondent lacked a legitimate interest and acted in bad faith.
Despite both parties being in a very similar industry, the complainant failed to present evidence that the respondent chose its company name for its resemblance to the complainant’s mark.
Registering and operating a company name is not sufficient on its own to confer legitimate interests to a respondent. However, the complainant did not address that the respondent’s choice of company name was a way to take advantage of the complainant’s reputation.
In order to do so, they needed to successfully show the respondent’s knowledge and targeting of the complainant’s UNISERVEMARINE mark. Had they established unregistered rights, this would have been a simpler task for the complainant.
Despite the panelist clearly having doubts about arguments presented by the respondent such as its company name origin, the complainant presented no evidence to the contrary. As such, the panelist had no choice but to side with the respondent. It was accepted that the respondent had been commonly known by the term corresponding to the domain name through four years of trading.
The panelist noted also the complainant’s claim that the respondent approached one of their partners in 2025, seeking to impersonate the complainant. Unfortunately, the complainant again provided no evidence to corroborate this. Such evidence may have assisted in showing the respondent’s targeting of the complainant.
Given the complainant’s lack of clear evidence of its unregistered rights and shortcomings in the second and third elements, the panelist could only deny the case.
Complainants should exercise caution when deciding to rely on unregistered rights. Failing to fulfil the first element can have a ripple effect on the other two UDRP elements, as highlighted in the <uniservmarine.com> case.
The higher threshold for successfully showing unregistered rights means complainants need compelling evidence and should use the guidance provided in WIPO Overview 3.0, Guideline 1.3 to assist them.
The complainant Uniservice Unisafe was not legally represented, so perhaps the panelist in this case felt a duty to explain in more detail the complainant’s shortcomings.
Ensuring that tangible and convincing evidence is used at every stage is paramount. Panelists are not there to help a complainant’s case and are under no obligation to perform independent research.
Let's talk more... about protecting your brand online.
Emily-Jane James
Legal Adviser
We can customise a solution to fit your business needs.
+44 (0) 1908 200022
+1 703 574 5313