In 2024, the State of Monaco, through its company Monaco Brands – which holds its IP assets, including various trade marks worldwide for MONACO – contacted her with the aim of acquiring the domain name. In 2025, she hired a broker to sell the domain name. The broker contacted potential interested acquirers including Monaco Brands. However, the domain name was eventually sold through Escrow to a US company, Irwin Inc. 

At the time of the dispute, the domain name was being held by the Escrow Agent until completion of the payment schedule by the buyer, Irwin Inc. 

The complaint:

Surprisingly, Monaco Brands filed a URDP complaint to obtain the transfer of the domain name against the Escrow agent, rather than the buyer or the seller, through the Czech Arbitration Court, claiming that the domain had been purchased to be resold at an unreasonably high price and obtain personal data from users. 

They added that the domain name is confusingly similar to their MONACO trade marks and that the Escrow agent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. They also argued that, as the domain features a revenue platform, its use appears consistent with phishing attempts or personal data collection. Finally, they claimed that the domain has been used in bad faith.

The response: 

The Escrow agent did not file a response. Instead, the buyer, Irwin Inc., acting as an intervening party, filed a response arguing that they have significant interests in this proceeding. 

Regarding the Escrow agent, they explained that he is only a neutral custodian of the domain and therefore not the true owner of it. 

Furthermore, they denied all the allegations and explained that they are a start-up which has raised millions of dollars from investors for their sales automation and customer relationship management platform. These services are different from the goods and services covered by the claimant’s earlier rights. They have also owned the domain name <monaco.co> since October 2024 and filed a US Trade Mark Application for MONACO covering their goods and services of interest. 

They also took the seller’s defence in arguing that she had complete discretion over both the buyer and the sale terms.

Side comments: 

The Panel agreed that the owner of the domain name should be the respondent – here the Escrow agent – and considered that his silence meant that he agreed with the buyer’s response. 

They also agreed that the buyer has a legitimate reason to join the proceeding, both to protect the value of their investment and to guarantee their expected right to ownership once the agreed price is paid. Therefore, the response filed by Irwin Inc. was accepted.

The rules of the game: 

To successfully obtain the transfer of the domain name, three conditions need to be fulfilled: 

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The decision: 

According to the practice, when comparing the domain name and the trade mark, the genericTop-Level Domain (gTLD) – here ‘.com’ – is ignored. Therefore, both are identical.  

The second condition is where the claimant felt short. Unlike the respondent, who supported their defence, the claimant did not file any evidence disproving the other side, nor that they had any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The respondent’s position was also supported by the fact that the domain name was used by the Monaco family for twenty years and that, through their last name, they had legitimate interests in the domain name. The final arguments that tipped the balance in favour of the defendant were that they provided evidence of how they intended to use the mark, filed a US Trade Mark application for MONACO, bought the domain name <monaco.co> and did not target the Complainant. For all these reasons, the Panel considered that Irwin Inc. has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the second condition was not fulfilled. 

The third condition, bad faith, has to be assessed as of the date at which the domain name was acquired, i.e. 23 September 2025. At this date, the domain name was held by the Escrow agent until the agreed price had been paid by Irwin Inc. There is no evidence that the Escrow agent was acting in bad faith, nor that Irwin Inc. did so either. Regarding the seller, Ms Monaco, she was found to have acted in good faith. Indeed, she has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name as it is identical to her surname and for these reasons, she was free to use the domain name and to sell it at any price she wished. Therefore, the claimant felt short of this third condition. 

Takeaways: 

This case highlights the importance of strong negotiations even when the buyers are country entities, especially as some domain names are sold at a premium. 

It is also important to note that bad faith as a condition has to be fulfilled and can be difficult to prove. The inability to satisfy this condition has the potential to jeopardise an entire case.