Plaintiff and defendant both offered domain name registration and web hosting services. Defendant, owner of the trademark and domain name “Godaddy.com,” filed a UDRP complaint against plaintiff and its domain name “updaddy.com.” The UDRP Panel held in favor of defendant, finding that: (1) plaintiff’s domain name was confusingly similar to defendant’s trademark rights in “Daddy” for domain name registration and web hosting, (2) plaintiff had no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, and (3) plaintiff registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The UDRP Panel ordered plaintiff to transfer the domain name to defendant. Plaintiff then filed this action for breach of contract, and defendant counterclaimed for infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition. Defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims as well as on its counterclaims. In seeking summary judgment on its counterclaims, defendant relied primarily on the UDRP decision. Although the court took judicial notice of the “undisputed fact that the decision was issued and found in favor of defendants,” it refused to take judicial notice of “the truth of the WIPO’s findings of fact.” Because defendant did not present any other undisputed facts entitling it to judgment as a matter of law, the court denied its motion for summary judgment.