In a recent WIPO ruling, Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC successfully secured the transfer of the domain name <myhrhersheys.com> from a privacy-shielded registrant. The case, WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case No. D2024-4516, serves as a critical learning opportunity for domain investors navigating the complex intersection of branding, cybersquatting, and intellectual property law.
This ruling isn’t just another cautionary tale—it’s a masterclass in what not to do when registering and monetizing domains. Whether you’re a seasoned investor or a curious domainer, here are the key takeaways from this case—and why they matter for your domain portfolio.
Case Summary: The Chocolate Giant vs. Cybersquatter
The Domain: <myhrhersheys.com>
Complainant: Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC (U.S.)
Respondent: Domain Admin, TotalDomain Privacy Ltd (Panama)
Registrar: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
Panelist: Tobias Malte Müller
Decision Date: December 20, 2024
Outcome: Domain ordered to be transferred to Hershey
The disputed domain closely mimicked Hershey’s own internal HR subdomain: <myhr.hersheys.com>. The infringing domain was registered in 2015 and had been used to host a parking page with Pay-Per-Click (PPC) ads related to payroll and employee services—topics directly tied to Hershey’s internal operations.
Worse, the domain was listed for sale (albeit without a price), had active MX records (suggesting potential email spoofing capabilities), and was protected by a privacy service—raising red flags about intent and transparency.
Learning Point 1: Confusing Similarity = Legal Trouble
WIPO found the domain to be confusingly similar to the HERSHEY’S mark, especially since it used the recognizable trademark “hersheys” combined with the common HR-related prefix “myhr.” The panel dismissed the omission of the apostrophe in “HERSHEY’S” as inconsequential since domain names can’t include special characters like apostrophes.
Takeaway for Domainers:
Just because a domain isn’t a verbatim match doesn’t mean you’re safe. Trademark holders only need to prove that a domain is confusingly similar, not identical. Creative spelling won’t protect you from a UDRP claim.
Learning Point 2: PPC Monetization Can Backfire
The Respondent had the domain parked with PPC links for HR and employee-related services. This is a textbook example of how monetizing a domain with links related to a trademark holder’s business can lead to a finding of bad faith.
Takeaway for Domainers:
If you’re monetizing parked domains, steer clear of categories that overlap with known trademarks. Intent matters—WIPO panels routinely rule against domain owners who appear to be piggybacking on another brand’s goodwill.
Learning Point 3: Privacy Services ≠ Immunity
The registrant used a privacy service, and the contact information ultimately provided was so vague that even a courier couldn’t deliver WIPO’s written notice. Combined with the use of PPC ads and the domain’s resemblance to Hershey’s legitimate subdomain, this behavior was deemed bad faith registration and use.
Takeaway for Domainers:
Privacy services can be a useful layer of protection, but they won’t shield you if you’re caught infringing. In fact, when paired with deceptive use, they can appear as evidence of bad faith.
Learning Point 4: Email-Ready Domains Raise Alarm Bells
The presence of an MX record meant the domain could be used to send or receive email. In cases involving employee portals or internal company resources, this opens the door to phishing and other malicious activity—making it a serious concern in WIPO proceedings.
Takeaway for Domainers:
Even if you’re not using the email function, having MX records configured can suggest intent to deceive. If you own domains resembling corporate email formats, tread carefully.
Final Verdict: Hershey for the Win
The WIPO panel found that:
-
The domain was confusingly similar to the HERSHEY’S trademark.
-
The Respondent had no legitimate rights or interests.
-
The domain was registered and used in bad faith.
As a result, the domain was ordered to be transferred to Hershey.
What This Means for Domain Investors
If you’re investing in domains, this case reinforces a few golden rules:
-
Do your trademark homework before registering.
-
Avoid monetization strategies that appear to trade on someone else’s brand.
-
Be transparent with your Whois data, especially if you’re challenged.
-
Don’t mimic corporate subdomains—especially those used for HR, finance, or employee systems.
-
Think twice before offering a domain for sale if it can be construed as cybersquatting.
Bonus Tip from Domain Success
Use tools like Trademark247.com, NameCheckr, or USPTO.gov to research whether your domain idea might infringe on existing trademarks. Proactively defending your portfolio from legal risk is just as important as acquiring high-value domains.
Bottom Line…
The Hershey case is a powerful reminder that the domain name industry operates within the larger ecosystem of intellectual property law. Being a savvy domainer means playing the long game—avoiding legal pitfalls while building a sustainable and valuable portfolio.
For more insights on domain strategy, case studies, and monetization techniques, stay tuned to DomainSuccess.com. and join our Newsletter here
To your domaining success,
@AndrewHazen & @DomainSuccess
