The Complainant is a well-known provider of kitchen appliances, most notably the INSTANT POT branded multicooker, which was first launched in 2008. Since its launch, the brand has achieved substantial commercial success and global recognition, with significant media attention and a strong online presence, including a large and active customer community on social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.<\/p>\n
The Complainant offers its products and services worldwide, including in key markets such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. These goods are sold through leading retailers such as Amazon, Argos, Costco, John Lewis, and Tesco Marketplace. The Complainant operates its official website at the domain name <instantpot.com>, which has been live since at least May 22, 2009.The Complainant’s INSTANT POT brand includes a product line known as Instant Pot Duo, and in particular, a product called the Instant Pot Duo Plus.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on March 19, 2025 and is used for a website that reproduces copyright-protected images of the Complainant’s “Instant Pot Duo Plus” product, closely imitating content from the Complainant’s official website.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:<\/p>\n (1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The addition of the term “plus” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks INSTANT POT and DUO, whereas the gTLD “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusion similarity test;<\/p>\n (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorised to use the Registered Trade Marks, whether at a domain name, website or otherwise. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website impersonating the Complainant and making unauthorised use of its trademarks and copyright-protected images in order to redirect users to external third party websites for financial gain. The Respondent has never legitimately been known by the name INSTANT POT DUO PLUS, INSTANT POT or any similar variation. This use cannot be considered a bona fide offer of services or a legitimate use of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark INSTANT POT is widely known. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent makes substantial use of INSTANT POT trademarks and copyright-protected images of INSTANT POT products. By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial purposes, internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In addition, the disputed domain name is used to impersonate\/pass off as the Complainant for financial gain through association.<\/p>\n The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Ganna Prokhorova"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-07-19 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for the marks INSTANT POT and DUO, including but not limited to:<\/p>\n - Canadian Trademark Registration Nos. TMA1147180 and TMA1147187 Instant Pot (figurative marks), registered on October 19, 2022 in Classes 7, 9, 11, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 35, 38, and 42;<\/p>\n - U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6291537 for INSTANT POT (word mark), registered on March 16, 2021, in relevant classes;<\/p>\n - U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6725378 and Canadian Registration No. TMA1251789 for the mark DUO, registered in Class 11.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
" instantpotduoplus.com ": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}