Sorry, the link to the WIPO decision was bad. It's actually at; http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922 Also, there might be a valid concern that I'm relying upon only one WIPO decision (there haven't been too many involving IGOs to begin with!). So, I searched the WIPO Overview 2.0, and found a section which is on point, and appears to support the UNITAID approach, see: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/#18 1.8 Can a trademark licensee or a related company to a trademark holder have rights in a trademark for the purpose of filing a UDRP case? Consensus view: In most circumstances, a licensee of a trademark or a related company such as a subsidiary or parent to the registered holder of a trademark is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP. For the purpose of filing under the UDRP, evidence of such license and/or authorization of the principal trademark holder to the bringing of the UDRP complaint would tend to support such a finding. Panels have in certain cases been prepared to infer the existence of a license and/or authorization from the particular facts, but in general, relevant evidence is desirable. Although not a requirement, panels have on occasion found it helpful, where a complaint relies on a common source of trademark rights, for all relevant rights holders to be included as co-complainants. It's not exactly the same (a licensee vs. an authorized proxy registrant of the mark), but it's similar in nature. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/