1.9 Personal Names
Personal names as such are not protected by the Policy. This is an inherent limitation of the UDRP reflected in the WIPO Final Report 1999 (par. 167) and confirmed later by the “ Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process ” 2001 (see in particular section 5 and par. 201): “The most cogent of the arguments against modification of the UDRP is, we believe, the lack of an international norm protecting personal names and the consequent diversity of legal approaches deployed to protect personal names at the national level”.
Therefore, a personal name enjoys protection as an unregistered (common law) trademark, if it has become a trademark-like identifier and has acquired secondary meaning (see also 1.1 and 1.2 above).
Being famous or popular on its own may not be sufficient. Not every famous individual is
engaged in business activity under her/his own name. The use of the personal name for a
commercial enterprise is key. Where a name was used in a political campaign without any
commercial activity, for example, the personal name may not serve as a trademark under common law.
The standard of establishing common law trademark rights for personal names should be the
same as for other marks, namely specific and strong evidence of acquired secondary meaning
rather than mere allegations.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Erica Wright v. Arielle Phoenix, WIPO D2025-1188 <erykahbadu. com>, Transfer
The Complainant has shown that she has consistently used for many years both in the United States and internationally the distinctive professional name Erykah Badu in a source-identifying capacity in relation to the live and recorded musical performance entertainment services that she has personally provided in herlong and distinguished career, that her social media and streaming services profiles under the name Erykah Badu have millions of followers and listeners, and that her professional achievements have been acknowledged by five Grammy awards, as well as other awards. Her popularity and musical status is also evident from the Respondent’s website which refers to her as “The Godmother of Soul”. This is sufficient for the Panel to conclude that the Complainant has shown that her ERYKAH BADU trademark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with her musical entertainment services, and that the Complainant has thus established her unregistered rights in the trademark ERYKAH BADU for the purposes of the Policy.
Nativ Winiarsky v. Todd Bank, WIPO D2025-0047 <nativwiniarsky. com>, Denied
The Panel is unable however to find, on this record, that the Complainant’s surname by itself has acquired distinctiveness as an unregistered mark for the purposes of the Policy. The Complainant only appears to do business under the firm name, which includes his surname only as part of the longer name Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens LLP, as shown on the firm’s website and printed brochure (which is pictured on the firm’s website). The firm uses a domain name based on the first two names, “Kucker Marino” and sometimes displays the firm name without the “LLP” designation and sometimes uses a logo with the initials “KMWB” arranged around a plus sign. But there is no real evidence in the record or on the website of the Complainant’s firm that the Complainant’s services are advertised and sold under the Complainant’s name alone or that the Complainant’s name is recognized by a relevant market as a service mark for the Complainant law firm.
Lucien William Valloni v. Domain Administrator, NameFind Cayman Islands Ltd., WIPO D2024-5126 <valloni. com>, 3-Member, Denied
The Panel notes that, in general, a person’s first name and surname are not capable of distinguishing the goods or services provided by that person from those provided by other persons bearing the same name or surname… The Complainant has not provided any evidence as to the amount of sales under the claimed mark and the nature and extent of advertising using it; there is no evidence as to the degree of actual recognition of the trademark by the public and no consumer surveys. Taken together, the evidence submitted by the Complainant is insufficient to establish unregistered trademark rights in his surname, as it does not show that the same has acquired a secondary meaning for consumers.
Raymond Dalio v. charles one, Forum FA2406002101828, <raydalio.life>, Transfer
Here, Complainant presents ample evidence of longstanding use, media recognition, and promotional material/advertising that are evidence of secondary meaning. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant established common law rights in his RAY DALIO mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain name.
Izzy Yetnikoff v. 1337 Services LLC, CIIDRC 21873-UDRP (2023), <izzyyetnikoff.com>, Denied
The Panel observes that in the case files there are no specific evidence supporting assertions of acquired distinctiveness is included in the Complaint. In this sense, the Panel verified merely an application filed for “IZZYYETNIKOFF.COM” before the USPTO on September 27, 2023 (annex 2 of the Complaint), was made after the registration of the disputed domain name. On the other hand, documents relating to the registration of Complainant’s law firm called Yetnikoff Law Offices, PLLC (annex 3 and 4 of the Complaint) are merely registrations of a business, failing to prove relevant evidence that the personal name has achieved “secondary meaning”…The Panel understands that the evidence submitted by Complainant is not enough to grant unregistered or common law rights pertaining to the name Izzy Yetnikoff.
Nazan Saatci v. 林得, CAC-UDRP-105526 (2023), <nazansaatci.com>, Transfer
The Complainant as a performer being a Turkish actress and known for her performances in Tokatçi, Ölümsüz and Hulchal and the second runner-up in Miss Asia Pacific beauty pageant in 1983, has amassed over 600 audio recordings of fairy voices and nearly 300 video recordings of different fairy appearances since 2018.
Daniel Tobok v. lubing ta, WIPO No. D2023-2946, <danieltobok.com>, Transfer
In this case, the Panel is satisfied on the evidence provided by the Complainant as summarized above that he has become established, over many years, as a leading expert on cybersecurity matters such that his personal name has become a distinctive identifier of the services that he provides on a commercial basis. The Panel moreover notes that for over a decade the Complainant held the disputed domain name – bearing his unadorned name – which may also be seen to serve as a form of source identifier, and therefore finds that the Complainant has common law rights in the trademark DANIEL TOBOK for the purposes of the Policy.
Tiffany Chhuom, PLLC d/b/a Ethtech, Tiffany Chhuom, Peter Chhuom v. J S, WIPO No. D2023-2930, <peterchhuom.com>, et. al., Denied
While the Policy does not specifically protect personal names, in situations where a personal name that is not registered as a trademark is being used in commerce, a complainant may be able to establish common law or unregistered rights in such personal name. See WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.5.2. Proving such common law or unregistered rights requires a complainant to show that the personal name has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods or services. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.3. Merely having a famous or well-known name without showing that a personal name has been used in a sufficiently trademark source identifying way will not, in and of itself, establish such common law or unregistered rights. See, e.g., Philippe Pierre Dauman v. Diner Business, WIPO Case No. D2013-1255. The touchstone for a complainant to establish common law or unregistered rights in a personal name requires proof that the personal name has achieved “secondary meaning” (even if such only exists in a particular geographical area or market niche). Relevant evidence of such “secondary meaning” typically includes the duration and nature of the use of the personal name as a mark, the amount of sales under the personal name, the nature and extent of advertising using the personal name, consumer surveys, and the degree of actual consumer, industry and media recognition of the personal name. WIPO Overview 3.0 at sections 1.3 and 1.5.2.
Melinda French Gates v. John Clendenon, Forum FA2207002003541, <melindagates.com>, 3-member, Denied
The exhibits accompanying the Complaint detail a handful of events in connection with which Complainant was featured in published reports for her charitable giving in the less than three years running from 1997 through early May of 1999. In one of those instances, Complainant’s name was reported in connection with creation of the Gates Library Foundation, her name not being mentioned in the title of the institution, while in the others Complainant was credited with philanthropic giving jointly with her spouse, rather than in her name alone. In more recent times Complainant appears to have become well known for charitable and public-spirited undertakings in her own right, but our analysis here must be confined to events and circumstances in the timeframe preceding registration of the contested domain name…
On the record before us, therefore, we find that Complainant has not proven that her personal name had ripened into a protectable common law mark by the time Respondent registered the <melindagates.com> domain name. Complainant has thus failed to show that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith when that occurred in May of 1999.
Roman Polanski v. Matan Uziel, WIPO No. D2022-4360, <imetpolanski.com>, 3-member, Denied
The Panel recognises, however, that it is conventional for the director of films of the kind made by the Complainant to be identified by name in the credits and the Panel infers that has occurred in this case, most likely under his full name. The number of films the Complainant has made over his long career and the large number of prestigious awards he has received, including Academy Awards and Cesar awards, demonstrate an international reputation in his name…In any event, the identity of the director of a motion picture is often an important selling point for the film, as is often the case for the principal actors. The services of such directors are highly sought after. The public’s reception of films made by such directors affects the films they are offered, the budgets and the fees they may command…The Panel finds therefore that the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated rights in at least his name “Roman Polanski” as an unregistered trademark.
K1 Promotions, LLC v. Jordan Fabel / Brandon Myers, Forum FA2006001900944, <kylermurray.com> and <kylermurray.org>, 3-member, Transfer
Complainant provides articles covering Complainant’s early sports career as a high school athlete as well as Complainant’s subsequent highly successful career and sponsorship deals. The Panel finds this evidence sufficient to establish extensive and continuous use of the mark as well as consumer recognition that Complainant is the source of the relevant goods or services, and finds that Complainant has common law rights in the KYLER MURRAY mark.
Steve Jobs Archive, LLC v. jongsubkim, Forum FA1909001861755, <stevejobs.com>, 3-member, Transfer
The Panel observes that the name ‘Steve Jobs’ has satisfied the factors to consider when determining whether a name has acquired common law trademark protection in the case
Chung, Mong Koo and Hyundai Motor Company v. Individual, WIPO Case No. D2005-1068 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2005), namely: (i) the extent to which the commercial community identifies the individual with the company; (ii) the extent to which the individual is seen by relevant media and sections of the public as the alter ego and driving force behind the company; (iii) the extent of the personal ownership of the company by the individual; (iv) the degree of personal control that the individual exercises over the enterprise; (v) the extent to which the individual is identified with any major achievements of the enterprise; and (vi) whether it can be said that the individual and/or the company has a demonstrable interest in protecting the individual’s name for commercial use. As such, the Panel concludes that the name STEVE JOBS acquired common law trademark rights across the globe prior to December 21, 1999, the date of Respondent’s registration for the <stevejobs.com> domain.