Tesla has scored a legal victory, reclaiming 52 domain names that were used to run fraudulent cryptocurrency schemes exploiting the company’s brand and CEO Elon Musk’s identity.
The ruling, issued by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) last week, concluded that Russian resident Ekaterina Tkachenko engaged in a deliberate campaign of cybersquatting. The domains, which combined the Tesla name with terms like “bitcoin,” “bonus,” and “2x,” were designed to mislead visitors into believing they were part of official Tesla-sponsored promotions.
WIPO panelist William A. Van Caenegem found the registration and use of the domains to be “manifestly in bad faith,” citing both the volume of domains and the consistent misuse of Tesla’s trademarks to deceive internet users. (via domainnamewire)
Tesla submitted compelling evidence showing at least one domain led to a scam site bearing the company’s logo and an image of Elon Musk. The site falsely promised to double any cryptocurrency sent to a specific wallet.
Although most of the websites were eventually blocked by major browsers and antivirus services, Tesla acted to ensure permanent control over the domains through a formal UDRP complaint.
The scam strategy relied heavily on Musk’s public association with cryptocurrency and his popularity in tech and investment circles. Over the years, scammers have repeatedly used his name and Tesla’s branding in fake crypto giveaways across social media, email campaigns, and cloned websites. This latest domain dispute was part of Tesla’s broader push to limit such abuse by regaining control over misused digital assets.
WIPO’s ruling orders the transfer of all 52 domains to Tesla, effectively disabling a significant portion of the fraudulent network.
This isn’t the first time Tesla has gone to court over the use of its name online. In late 2024, the company filed a similar cybersquatting complaint against a Chinese-based website, teslaunch.net, which sells third-party accessories for Tesla vehicles. However, in that case, the panel ruled against Tesla.
Despite the domain owner not responding to the complaint, WIPO panelist Steven M. Levy found that the website’s activity did not constitute bad faith under the UDRP. He determined that selling compatible accessories does not inherently amount to cybersquatting, even if it leverages Tesla’s name. The panel noted Tesla might still have a valid trademark infringement claim, but that would need to be pursued in a court of law.
