Decision

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Etihad Airways v. Hale Com
Case No. DAI2025-0058

1. The Parties
The Complainant is Etihad Airways, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Clyde & Co., UAE.
The Respondent is Hale Com, United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by Archer
Softech, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <etihad.ai> is registered with .AI Registry (the “Registry”).

3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2025. On November 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 5, 2025, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On November 6, 2025, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 14, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the original due date for Response was December 4, 2025. On November 26, 2025, the
Respondent sent an email communication requesting an extension under paragraph 5(b) of the Rules.

On the same day, the Center confirmed that the Respondent was granted the automatic four calendar day
extension for response; the new due date for Response was December 8, 2025. The Response was filed
with the Center on December 8, 2025.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy, Luca Barbero, and Gerald M. Levine as panelists in this matter on January 13, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has
submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the national airline of the UAE. It commenced operations in November 2003 and now operates one of the largest airlines in the UAE. It carried more than two million passengers in a single month in August 2025. It has won multiple industry awards, including Cargo Airline of the Year 2015 (Air Cargo Week Awards); Airline of the Year 2016 (Air Transport World Awards); Cargo Airline of the Year 2022 (Aviation Achievement Awards); and Air Cargo Operator of the Year 2022 (Logistics Middle East Awards).

The Complainant owns trademarks in multiple jurisdictions, including the following:

− United States trademark registration number 3329038 for ETIHAD, registered on November 6, 2007,
specifying services in class 39, including airline transportation services;
− UAE trademark registration number 161681 for ETIHAD, registered on December 25, 2011, specifying
services in class 43, including services for providing food and drink;
− UAE trademark registration number 155789 for a stylized ETIHAD mark, registered on May 15, 2013,
specifying services in class 39, including airline services for the transportation of passengers and cargo; and
− United States trademark registration number 4374230 for ETIHAD, registered on July 30, 2013,
specifying services in class 35, including advertising services.

The above trademark registrations are current. The United States registrations include the information that the English translation of the word “Etihad” is “union”. The Complainant has registered the domain name <etihad.com> that it uses in connection with a multilingual website where it provides information about itself and offers flight reservation services. The Complainant has also registered the domain name
<etihadairways.com> that redirects to <etihad.com>.

The Respondent “Hale Com” or “Hale” is allegedly a company and its alter ego is a domain name investor
based in the United States (both are referred to below as “the Respondent”). The evidence on file shows
that in 2017 the Respondent signed up for an online course that was part of a program on practical deep
learning for coders. The Respondent holds multiple domain names in the “.ai” country code Top-Level
Domain (“ccTLD”), including <motor.ai>, <acquisition.ai>, <artifact.ai>, <banco.ai>, <das.ai>, <doha.ai>, <internship.ai>, <institution.ai>, <kismet.ai>, <mdm.ai>, <ser.ai>, and the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was created on December 16, 2017 and acquired by the Respondent in his personal name at auction on or about August 7, 2023 for a price of USD 631. The registrant name was
changed to “Hale Com” at some point between August 26, 2023 and November 15, 2023 but the contact
information in the WhoIs database was left incomplete. (The Respondent submits that he redacted part of the WhoIs information because he was a victim of identity theft a few years ago. In the Response, he undertakes to correct this when the disputed domain name is unlocked.)

The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage hosted by a domain name broker. At the time when the
Complaint was filed, the webpage advertised the disputed domain name for sale at an asking price of USD 98,500. At the time of this Decision, the webpage advises that the disputed domain name is registered but might still be available; it displays a button to purchase the disputed domain name but no longer displays a price. “Etihad” is a Latin transliteration of an Arabic word “اتحاد “meaning “union” or “unity”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its ETIHAD mark. The
Complainant has established substantial goodwill and reputation in, and has become exclusively associated with the ETIHAD trademark worldwide.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The
Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its ETIHAD mark, nor is there any relationship
between the Parties that would entitle the Respondent to use the mark. The Respondent is not commonly
known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name automatically redirects to a website where it is advertised for sale to the general public at an asking price of USD 98,500, which cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of the Policy.

The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is not being used in connection with any legitimate interests. Rather, it is being offered for sale suggesting that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for commercial gain for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to third parties such as a competitor, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks by registering a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s ETIHAD trademark, which demonstrates that the Respondent is using the domain to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services and to mislead them as to the source of the disputed domain name and/or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

At the outset, the Respondent submits that “Etihad” is the transliteration of a common Arabic word meaning “union” or “unity” and is therefore inherently non-distinctive. Just as the word “United” itself cannot be exclusively appropriated by United Airlines, the same principle should apply to the word “Etihad” in Arabic.

The Respondent submits that he is a US-based technology professional specializing in artificial Intelligence (“AI”), currently employed in the AI sector. Over the course of his career, he has contributed to multiple AI projects and has extensive experience. He studied AI and deep learning with Fast.AI at the University of San Francisco in person starting in 2017. Beginning in 2018, he started registering “.ai” domain names in order to launch vision and speech AI apps.

The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant has standing under the Policy but submits that the
Complainant has not made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent needs no license or authorization from the Complainant to offer it for sale. The Respondent has been a domain name investor for numerous years and maintains a portfolio of hundreds of domain names. The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name to develop an Arabic translation and speech web application but, due to the rise of Large Language Models, the use case for a stand-alone Arabic application became redundant. Hence, the Respondent put the disputed domain name up for sale via a third party service in mid-2024 and, as of today, it is part of the Respondent’s stock-in-trade.

The Respondent’s portfolio includes several “.ai” domain names, with a consistent focus on short, common word or other generic “.com” domain names. His portfolio includes Arabic/Urdu domain names such as <kismet.ai> (meaning ‘fate’); <ser.ai> (a unit of weight); <waz.ai> (meaning “preaching”); and <das.ai> (meaning “ten”). The Respondent has offered certain other “.ai” domain names at prices even higher than USD 98,500. The price for the disputed domain name was set below USD 50,000 about a year ago and was only increased after reports of numerous “.ai” sales, in line with broader market trends. “Etihad” is not uniquely associated with the Complainant but is used in other contexts including the technology, financial, insurance, and construction sectors. This widespread usage and the common nature of the term demonstrate that the Respondent had ample legitimate reason to register the disputed domain name for an AI project and later retain it as an investment.

The disputed domain name was neither registered nor is being used in bad faith. There is no evidence
whatsoever to support the Complainant’s narrow contention that the disputed domain name was registered because of the Complainant’s trademark only, and not due to it being a transliteration of a common Arabic word meaning “union” or “unity”. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name because of its inherent meaning and suitability as a generic, brandable term in the “.ai” space, rather than with any intention of targeting the Complainant’s trademark. Speculating and investing in inherently valuable domain names is a legitimate business and in good faith. Given the Respondent’s Arabic roots and AI background, and the common descriptive meaning of “Etihad” in the Arabic language, the disputed domain name was registered in good faith to develop an Arabic translation web-based App. The Respondent did not offer the disputed domain name for sale for more than a year after its registration. The Respondent’s general offer for sale of the common word disputed domain name for USD 98,500 through a broker is not any kind of bad faith, as the Respondent never approached the Complainant. No right of the Complainant or its mark has in any manner been violated.

The Respondent requests that the Panel issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking since there is
no basis for this claim and the Complainant (through its counsel) knew or should have known that before
filing the Complaint that it would not succeed in proving at least one of the three elements of the Policy.
Proceedings under the Policy must not be commenced in a brash and totally unjustifiable attempt to pressure a domain name owner into releasing a legitimately held domain name.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must demonstrate each of the following elements:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. Failure to demonstrate any one element will result in denial of the Complaint.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or
threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the ETIHAD trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the ETIHAD mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The only additional
element is the ccTLD extension “.ai” which, as a standard requirement of domain name registration, may be disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy.

Accordingly,  the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.11.1.

Therefore, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Given the Panel’s findings regarding the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is unnecessary to consider the second element.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy contains two requirements that apply conjunctively. A complainant must show both that the disputed domain name has been registered or acquired in bad faith and also that it is being used in bad faith. The former requires a demonstration that the Respondent knew, or should have known of the Complainant and/or the Complainant’s trademark at the time when it registered or acquired the disputed domain name and that it registered or acquired the disputed domain name with a bad faith intention targeting the Complainant and/or its mark.

In the present dispute, the disputed domain name was acquired by the Respondent in 2023, years after the registration of the Complainant’s ETIHAD mark, including in the United States, where the Respondent is based. The disputed domain name is identical to the ETIHAD mark, but the mark is not a coined term. The Complainant asserts that it has established substantial goodwill and reputation in the ETIHAD trademark worldwide. The Complainant has been operating its airline since 2003, which was 20 years before the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name, and has won various industry awards during that time. It presents figures showing that it transported millions of passengers per year in recent years. Nowhere in the detailed Response does the Respondent deny awareness of the Complainant or its mark at any relevant time. Accordingly, the Panel is willing to infer that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its mark when he acquired the disputed domain name.

Nevertheless, the disputed domain name is a transliteration of the common Arabic word “اتحاد“, meaning
“union” or “unity”, which is not an exclusive reference to the Complainant. The Respondent, who plausibly attests that he is an Arabic speaker born in Djibouti, submits that it was in this ordinary, dictionary word sense that he understood the term when deciding to acquire the disputed domain name. His evidence shows that the Arabic word “ اتحاد)“etihad) is used in different contexts, such as a gathering of people, a student union, a larger corporation, or a group of countries. According to evidence presented by the Respondent, the Complainant itself has explained on social media that “‘Etihad’ means ‘union’ in Arabic, which also refers to the Union of the seven Emirates.” The UAE national day is known as “Eid al Etihad”.

The Respondent submits that “Etihad” is a generic, brandable term that has been independently adopted by various parties due to its common meaning in the Arabic language. The evidence shows that this term is relatively common in branding in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, across a range of sectors. For example, there are active websites for Etihad Advanced Investment, Etihad National Holding, Etihad Energy Services, Etihad Capital, Etihad Hospitality, Al-Etihad Gold, Etihad Food Industries, Etihad Medical Services, Etihad Sugar Mills, Etihad Technology, Etihad Town, Etihad Blue Contracting Co., El Etihad (engineering and electromechanical), Etihad Holding, Etihad Leading Investment, Al-Etihad Gasket Factory, Bank Al-Etihad, Etihad Zurmati Cold Storage Company, Etihad Club, and Etihad Logistics. According to search results presented by the Respondent, over 200 companies in different jurisdictions incorporate “Etihad” in their company names; including many that are active and do not appear to be affiliated with the Complainant.

The Panel sees no evidence on the record that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name based
on its trademark significance rather than its meaning as a transliteration of a common word. The disputed domain name does not contain any term that refers to the Complainant (such as “airways”) nor does the ccTLD extension “.ai” have any apparent connection to the Complainant’s operations (whether it is understood as a ccTLD reference or to artificial intelligence). The disputed domain name has not been used with website content displaying the Complainant’s stylized mark or related to its services. The Respondent did not contact the Complainant. The Respondent has no pattern of bad faith registrations as far as the Panel is aware; on the contrary, his portfolio of domain names in the “.ai” ccTLD contains at least 11 others consisting of a dictionary word or a transliteration of a word (although none other is clearly a transliteration of an Arabic word).

The Complainant argues that the offering of the disputed domain name for sale is evidence of bad faith.
However, generally speaking, prior UDRP panels have found that the practice as such of registering a
domain name for subsequent resale (including for a profit) would not by itself support a claim that the
respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling to a trademark owner (or its competitor). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1. In the present dispute, the Panel is unable to determine that the Respondent’s asking price of USD 98,500 reflected the disputed domain name’s value as a trademark rather than as a transliteration of a common word in the “.ai” ccTLD.

While the Respondent fails to substantiate his allegation that he originally intended to use the disputed
domain name with a web application and only offered it for sale later, that does not alter the Panel’s
conclusion in the circumstances of this case.

Accordingly, the evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in
registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the
Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to
harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.

In the present dispute, the Complainant failed to address the material circumstance that its ETIHAD
trademark is a transliteration of an Arabic word meaning “union”. The Complainant and its legal
representative are both based in the UAE and can be presumed to be aware of that circumstance; indeed, it is noted on a trademark registration certificate annexed to the Complaint. Even though the Complainant may have obtained the transfer of other domain names in prior UDRP proceedings without addressing this circumstance, the Complainant should have appreciated the factual differences in the present dispute, in particular, the composition of the disputed domain name and the absence of targeting of the Complainant or its mark. While the Complainant alleged that the offering of the disputed domain name for sale constituted evidence of targeting, this was based on the premise that the term “Etihad” is uniquely associated with the  Complainant. The Complainant, which has legal representation, should have appreciated the weakness of its case and the need to provide evidence of targeting in light of the dictionary meaning of “ اتحاد) “etihad).

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Matthew Kennedy
Presiding Panelist

Luca Barbero
Panelist

Gerald M. Levine
Panelist
Date: January 22, 2026

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

La Banque Populaire Val de France v. Kaparthi Jonnalagadda
WIPO Case No. D2025-46381.

The Parties
The Complainant is La Banque Populaire Val de France, France, represented by La SELARL JB avocat, France.
The Respondent is Kaparthi Jonnalagadda, India, represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <vdft.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in French with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2025. On November 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 10, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 11, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint, in French, on November 12, 2025.
On November 11, 2025, the Center informed the parties in English and French, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is English. On November 12, 2025, the Complainant confirmed its request that French be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent objected to the Complainant’s request.The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 13, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 3, 2025. The Respondent requested on November 27, 2025, an extension of the Response due date. The Respondent was granted the automatic four calendar day extension for response under paragraph 5(b) of the Rules and the Response was therefore due December 7, 2025. The Response was filed in English with the Center on December 1, 2025.
The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a French credit provider, part of the BCPE group. The Complainant provides credit to buyers and private investors in connection with new residential programs under the VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark since 2012.

The Complainant operates the domain name <banquepopulaire.fr/valdefrance> and owns the domain name <vdft.fr> (registered on December 8, 2014).

The disputed domain name was registered on April 21, 2005, and resolves to a parked webpage offering it for sale for USD 89,999.

The Respondent is a domain name investor based in India, holding other four-letter domain names.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Initially, the Complainant requests that French be the language of the proceedings given that, not only the disputed domain name makes reference to the VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark used by the Complainant which is the owner of the trademark BANQUE POPULAIRE VAL DE FRANCE, declared notorious in France, but also to the fact that the Respondent selected a privacy protection service so as to conceal its identity, resulting the need to translate the Complaint into English a disproportional charge on the Complainant.

Notably, the Complainant asserts to be a French credit provider, part of the BPCE group, providing credit services under the unregistered VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark since 2012, which became a distinctive trademark given the more than 570,000 clients served and revenues of more than EUR 1.6 million in 2022.

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name fully incorporates its VDFT mark, being likely to cause confusion and to lead consumers to mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is affiliated with or sponsored by the Complainant.

Under the Complainant’s view the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name given that the Respondent:

i. selected a privacy protection service so as to conceal its identity;
ii. never acquired rights authorizing it to register or use the disputed domain name; and
iii. does not use, and has not made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.

Lastly, the Complainant sustains that its VDFT mark is notorious in its segment, there being no good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, who selected a privacy protection service to conceal its identity, what makes it impossible to conceive any good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put other than to infringe the Complainant’s rights or to harm Internet users and customers of the Complainant. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is being offered for sale for large amounts which are in excess of the registration costs, a further indicative of the Respondent’s bad faith and intent to profit on the Complainant’s notoriety.

B. Respondent

In its Response, the Respondent contends the following:
The language of the proceedings is to be English given that that is the language of the disputed domain name registration agreement. Furthermore, the Respondent is located in India and understands only English and the local Indian languages. Moreover, given that the Complainant is represented by counsel, could and should have ensured that the Complaint and supporting documents were filed in English, particularly after the Center’s explicit invitation.

The Respondent asserts to be a generic four-letter domain investor, having registered the disputed domain name for its inherent value as a four-letter domain name and which can be used in connection with different fields and meanings, making it a valuable asset. The Respondent further asserts to own other four-letter domain names in his portfolio.

The Respondent submits that he has never solicited the Complainant, nor has he at any time used the disputed domain name either to interfere with the Complainant’s activities, to cause harm to the Complainant, or in any manner that could be regarded as bad faith under the Policy.
The Respondent argues that a “straightforward search of the WIPO Global Brand Database confirms that
there is no registered trademark for ‘VDFT’ anywhere in the world”, and more than that, the Complainant should fail at the first element given that it has not shown apparent common law or unregistered rights in “VDFT” visible from open-source Internet searches.

Moreover, the Respondent sustains that the domain name <vdft.fr> has never been actively used (Annex VI to the Response) and that the webpage available at https://www.banquepopulaire.fr/valdefrance/professionnels/banque-populaire-val-de-france-immobilier/val-de-france-transactions does not use the acronym VDFT being it unclear on what basis the Complainant claims to have any trademark rights (registered or unregistered) in the acronym “VDFT”.

Under the Respondent’s point of view, there is simply no exclusive right in “VDFT” that can be assumed in favor of the Complainant, as it is merely an acronym of the Complainant’s subsidiary corporate name, also not having the Complainant shown use of “VDFT” as an unregistered mark in an open, continuous, extensive, and uninterrupted manner over any significant period so as to acquire common law rights or
acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning).

As to his rights or legitimate interest, the Respondent argues that he has been a domain name investor for the last numerous years and maintains a portfolio of hundreds of domain names, including numerous four-letter domain names, what is not against the Policy.

Lastly, the Respondent reiterates that he had no knowledge of the Complainant or its subsidiary company until having received notice of these proceedings. Furthermore, the offer for sale of the disputed domain name is rather a legitimate use on the part of a domain name investor and does not violate the Policy given that the Respondent has not targeted the Complainant which, in its turn did not have any rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name over “VDFT”.
The Respondent submits that given that the Complainant is represented by counsel, it ought to have undertaken a minimal due diligence before filing the Complaint and should be held to a higher standard and found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”).

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Matter – Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is English. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in French. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be French given that, under its view, the disputed domain name makes reference to the VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark used by the Complainant which is the owner of the trademark BANQUE POPULAIRE VAL DE FRANCE, declared notorious in France; also having the Respondent selected a privacy protection service so as to conceal his identity, thus resulting the need to translate the Complaint into English a disproportional charge on the Complainant.

The Respondent requested that the language of the proceeding be English as he does not understand French.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2. Substantive Matter

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Complainant contends that it has unregistered rights in the VDFT mark by virtue of its use since 2012 in connection with its VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS credit service.
As foreseen in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3, “to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services. Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys.”

However, the Complainant has failed to produce sufficient evidence showing actual use of the acronym “VDFT” in its commercial activities as a source identifier, being it the Panel’s view that the Complainant relied solely on the fact that such is the acronym of VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS. The lack of any unregistered trademark in VDFT is further corroborated by the Complainant’s webpage available at https://www.banquepopulaire.fr/valdefrance/professionnels/banque-populaire-val-de-france-immobilier/val-de-france-transactions in which at no point the acronym is used in a trademark sense.
In addition to that, in spite of apparently owning the domain name <vdft.fr>, no use of this domain name, present or past could be found.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has not been established in the present proceeding.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for its intrinsic four-letter nature and is entitled to offer it for sale, especially considering that the Respondent has never targeted the Complainant or used the disputed domain name in a manner that could be found harmful to the Complainant or Internet users.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has not been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is being offered for sale, but this is not sufficient on its own, considering the circumstances of this case, to conclude that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proving registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith targeting of the Complainant or its trademark rights because the Complainant did not prove that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name due to its significance in relation to the Complainant or any trademark of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant did not prove to be well-known as VDFT, at the time that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1. While the Panel notes that there seemed to have been a change of use of the disputed domain name around 2013 (according to Wayback Machine), and it is plausible that the Respondent may have acquired the disputed domain name at a time different to the original creation date, the Complainant did not provide any relevant evidence showing that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant with the  disputed domain name at any point in time. On the contrary, the Panel finds more likely than not that the Respondent registered it due to its value as a four-letter domain name.

The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.

This is a clear case in which the Complainant, represented by Counsel, ought to have known that it could not have succeeded under the Policy: the Complainant has not shown unregistered rights over VDFT; the disputed domain name was registered in 2005 (without evidence showing a later acquisition by the Respondent), well before the Complainant started offering its VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS service in 2012; the disputed domain name consists of a four letter domain name that can be read as different acronyms; the Complainant intends to rely on its alleged notoriety which however does not extend to VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS and particularly not to VDFT based on the evidence provided by the Complainant; there is no bad faith use by the Respondent, who is not and has never targeted the Complainant.

The Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied and the Complainant is found guilty of RDNH.

/Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/
Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Sole Panelist
Date: December 26, 2025

<snsg.com> Decision and RDNH Finding

– The Complaint was denied as the Complainant failed to prove bad faith registration or use.

– The Panel found the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constituted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH), citing that even basic research would have shown the claim was unlikely to succeed.

Key Takeaways

– The decision underscores the importance of timing and evidence in UDRP cases: registering a domain long before a complainant’s trademark rights can be a strong defense against bad faith allegations.

– Passive holding and responding to purchase requests do not automatically indicate bad faith if registration predates the complainant’s rights.

– The ruling serves as a reminder that attempting UDRP claims without credible evidence of bad faith may result in findings of RDNH.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SNSG Company, LLC v. Info
Case No. D2025-3736

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SNSG Company, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Info, Republic of Korea, represented by Ankur Raheja of Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <snsg.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Gabia, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 15, 2025. On September 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 17, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (LEE) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 18, 2025, regarding a Complaint deficiency, and providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed “additional supporting evidence” followed by amendments to the Complaint and an amended Complaint in English on September 16, 2025, September 18, 2025, and September 19, 2025, respectively.
On September 18, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Korean and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the Domain Name was Korean. On September 18, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent also requested English to be the language of the proceeding on October 17, 2025..

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendments to the Complaint and amended Complaints satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Korean of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 19, 2025. The Response was filed with the Center on October 17, 2025.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Supplemental filings

On October 17, 2025 the Complainant filed an unsolicited supplemental filing. It dealt firstly with a submission in the Response that the Complainant had been suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”) prior to the filing of the Complaint and that it therefore lacked legal capacity to initiate proceedings under the UDRP. The Complainant stated that it only discovered the fact of its suspension on receipt of the Response and went on to set out the remedial steps it was taking. The Complainant did not attempt to justify the supplemental filing on the grounds that its lack of prior knowledge of the suspension amounted to “exceptional circumstance” (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.6). However, the Panel notes that this argument could have been raised. The Respondent responded to this element of the supplemental filing in its own supplemental filing on November 4, 2025.

The Panel considers that it is not appropriate for it to attempt to analyze the effect or consequences of a suspension by the California FTB under the appropriate law, whether or not with the benefit of seeking more comprehensive submissions from the Parties by issuing procedural orders. Rather, in light of the Panel’s views on the substantive issues in the case, the Panel will proceed to deal with the Complaint on the assumption that the Complainant did have legal capacity to bring this administrative proceeding under the UDRP.

The Complainant also sought in its supplemental filing to make further submissions that largely comprised rebuttals of the Respondent’s case. The Panel does not accept that it would be appropriate to admit these submissions which, in any event, would have had no bearing on the Panel’s decision.
Accordingly, the Panel declines to accept the Parties’ supplemental filings.

4. Factual Background

The Complaint is very brief and gives almost no details about the Complainant. However, with the benefit of simple Internet searches it appears that the Complainant is the corporate persona of Manuel Alex Cabanyog Mendoza, a Californian rapper known as SNSG. The Complaint states that the Complainant “actively uses ‘SNSG’ as a music artist name and brand name”.

The Complainant is the proprietor of United States trademark number 6670576 SNSG (the “Mark”) registered on March 15, 2022.

The Domain Name was registered on June 18, 2003. It does not now resolve, and appears never to have resolved, to an active website.

The Panel notes its general powers articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules and has visited the public resources. The Panel considers this process useful in assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.8.

On January 25, 2024, the Complainant sent an unsolicited email to the Respondent, asking “Would you be interested in selling the [Domain Name]?” The Respondent responded “I expect a price of 60,000usd for it.”. On January 25, 2024 the Complainant replied: “Way out of my price range I apologize. Thank you! I own the trademark and was hoping to get this name but will use something different.”
On September 18, 2025, after receiving notification of the Complaint, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant pointing out that it had registered the Domain Name on June 18, 2003, that since it had registered the Domain Name before the Respondent acquired trademark rights and had registered a generic four letter combination without any knowledge of the Complainant, it should prove virtually impossible for the Complainant to prove bad faith registration. The Respondent suggested that the Complainant withdraw the Complaint to avoid the panel ruling in its favor with the adverse consequences this would bring and avoid unnecessary costs. Further email correspondence ensued resulting in an agreement that the Complainant would purchase the Domain Name for USD 10,000. However, the agreement was not concluded because the Parties failed to agree on payment terms.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SNSG trademark (the “Mark”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent’s demand for USD 60,000 for the Domain Name and the passive holding of the Domain Name evidences and supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. The Respondent accepts that the Domain Name is identical or similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, but it relies on the fact that the Domain Name was registered almost 19 years before the Complainant acquired trademark rights in the SNSG mark and 15 years before the Complainant was founded.

The Respondent claims that it undoubtedly has rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name because it was the first to register it, without any knowledge of the Complainant that did not then exist for many more years. The Respondent has acquired a number of four-letter domain names because it regards them as inherently valuable and registered the Domain Name because it was a short, brandable acronym.

The Respondent states that there can be no question therefore of its having registered the Domain Name in bad faith, particularly since the Respondent was entirely unaware of the Complainant until it received the email in January 2024. In addition, the Respondent contends that the Complainant’s reliance on passive use evidencing bad faith use is entirely unfounded since any such argument depends on a finding first of bad faith registration.

Addressing the allegations in relation to the offers to sell the Domain Name, the Respondent points out that the initial approach was made by the Complainant (as it turned out) who did not in any event disclose at that stage that it owned a trademark for SNSG. The Respondent submits that there is nothing wrong in responding to a commercial enquiry for purchase of a domain name. It relies on previous Panel decisions finding that responding to a request from a complainant to purchase a domain name is not considered bad faith. The Respondent states that at no stage did it threaten the Complainant but merely pointed out that for the Complainant to continue with the Complaint, after the Respondent had explained why it would almost certainly fail, would have adverse consequences, including in terms of wasted costs.

6.1 Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Korean. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the Domain Name consists of Latin characters, not Korean, and that the Respondent had previously corresponded with the Complainant in English.

The Respondent also requested English to be the language of the proceeding on October 17, 2025.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6. 2 Discussion and Findings

For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the Panel’s findings in section C below, the Panel does not need to address the question of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

The Panel notes, however, that the Respondent submits that it registered the Domain Name on the basis that it was a potentially valuable four-letter acronym (strictly an initialism) many years before the Complainant came into existence or acquired trademark rights. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.10.2 indicates that “For a respondent to have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name comprising an acronym, the respondent’s evidence supporting its explanation for its registration (and any use) of the domain name should indicate a credible and legitimate intent which does not capitalise on the reputation and goodwill inherent in the complainants mark.” See section C below.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The evidence in the case file does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the Domain Name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Name was registered some 15 years before the Complainant came into existence and almost 19 years before the Complainant acquired trademark rights in the Mark. There is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent became aware of the Complainant before the email from the Complainant in January 2024, and no evidence supporting a finding that the Respondent was likely to have become aware of the rapper behind the Complainant known as SNSG before that time.

It follows that the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the Domain Name in bad faith targeting of the Complainant or its trademark rights because the Complainant had no trademark rights at the time that the Respondent registered the Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1.
Although immaterial, therefore, the Panel further finds that there is no evidence of bad faith use by the Respondent. In circumstances where there was no bad faith registration, neither passive use of the Domain Name, nor offers to sell the Domain Name, can be relevant, and there is no other evidence supporting bad faith use.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.

In this case, although the Complaint was prepared by the Complainant acting through its lay representative, even the most casual research into how to prepare a complaint under the UDRP would have made it quite apparent that a complaint based on trademark rights acquired some 19 years after the Domain Name was registered, and 15 years before the Complainant came into existence, could not possibly succeed. Indeed, without any credible evidence of bad faith registration it should also have been quite apparent that the Complainant could not succeed as to any of the three elements; indeed this was pointed out by the Respondent but ignored by the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: November 17, 2025

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
EDMI LIMITED v. Domain Admin, WebDesign HQ
Case No. D2025-2151

1. The Parties

Complainant is EDMI LIMITED, Singapore, represented by Amica Law LLC, Singapore.
Respondent is Domain Admin, WebDesign HQ, Singapore, represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <edmi.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 2, 2025. On June 2, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 2, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 10, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 18, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was July 22, 2025. On July 21, 2025, the Center received a submission from an email address associated with Respondent as confirmed by the Registrar for the disputed domain name after the Complaint was filed, requesting a 14-day extension to move the due date to submit the Response from July 22, 2025, to August 5, 2025. On July 23, Complainant timely filed an objection to Respondent’s 14-day extension request. Taking into account that Respondent’s request was received one day prior to the Response deadline, in accordance with Rules, paragraph 5(e), the Center declined the 14-day extension request, and in accordance with paragraph 5(b) of the Rules granted the automatic four-day extension on July 22, 2025, extending the due date for the Response until July 26, 2025.

On July 23, 2025, and again on July 24, 2025 the Center received an email from a person identifying himself as Respondent’s authorized representative, who requested a further extension of the Response deadline due to being recently retained and a family member’s surgery scheduled on the same date as the Response deadline. On July 25, 2025, the Center noted the July 24 email from Respondent’s representative regarding a personal family emergency and taking into account such circumstances the Center granted an extension of the Response due date to August 5, 2025. The Response was filed with the Center on August 3, 2025. Respondent also sent email communications to the Center on June 11, 2025, July 21-24, 2025, and October 13, 2025.

On August 11, 2025, Complainant filed with the Center a request for leave “to file a brief supplemental statement to clarify key points and correct factual misrepresentations made in the Response”. Respondent objected to Complainant’s request.

On September 3, 2025, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Center appointed David Andrew Allison and Gerald M. Levine as Panelists and Scott R. Austin as Chair. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

On September 19, 2025, the Panel issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, which permitted Complainant to submit its requested supplemental filing by September 24, 2025, permitted Respondent to provide any comments on Complainant’s supplemental filing by September 29, 2025, and extended the Panel’s decision deadline to October 9, 2025, which was further extended for exceptional circumstances to October 15, 2025. On September 24, 2025, a Supplemental Filing was received from Complainant. On September 29, 2025, a Supplemental Filing was received from Respondent.

4. Factual Background

Headquartered in Singapore, Complainant is a Singapore public company limited by shares and a subsidiary of Osaki Electric Co., Ltd group, a leading Japanese metering solutions provider and part of a group of companies that design, develop, and manufacture energy meters and smart metering systems for the utility industry. Originally founded in Queensland, Australia as Electronic Design and Manufacturing Queensland, Complainant changed its corporate name in 1981 to Electronic Design and Manufacturing International and since that time has provided its products and services under a trademark consisting of the four letter acronym of its corporate name, EDMI (the “EDMI Mark”). Complainant uses the domain name <edmi-meters.com> to access its official website to provide information on Complainant’s products tailored for the energy and smart metering sector.

Complainant holds a number of EDMI and EDMI-formative trademark registrations, shown on copies submitted in the annexes to the Complaint, including the following

1. Australia Registration No. 1497694, EDMI, registered June 21, 2012, for a range of electronic utility meters and related software support services in International Classes 9 and 42;
2. New Zealand Registration No. 960808, EDMI, registered December 21, 2012, for a range of electronic utility meters and related software support services in International Classes 9 and 42; and
3. UK Registration No. UK00004079313, , registered October 18, 2024, for a range of electronic utility meters and related software support services in International Class 9.

The Registrar reports that the Disputed Domain Name was created on September 12, 2020, and is registered in the registrant name of “Domain Admin” and in the registrant organization of WebDesign HQ Pte. Ltd. a private limited company incorporated in Singapore with Unique Entity Number 201922813G, headquartered in Singapore. The Response, however, further identifies the registrant as Mr. Aishwin, an Indian resident, and the registrant organization, WebDesignHQ “incorporated in Singapore by Mr. Aishwin”, which the Response refers to collectively as “the Respondent”. From the Response, it appears that the Respondent company is established as a vehicle for Mr. Aishwin’s investing in domain names, including specifically the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name was originally created on February 11, 1996. Respondent, who has traded in a large number of domain names, acquired the Disputed Domain Name “due to its inherent value as a pronounceable four-Letter (4L) domain name” as the winning bidder during a public expired domain name auction on September 12, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name redirects to the website operated by Respondent which lists the domain name for sale, “https://www.onlinebusiness.com/buy/edmi.com”, and is generally considered an inactive website as there is no active content or functionality beyond the sales pitch and a “purchase inquiry form” providing contact information for purchase.

According to the parties respective email evidence submitted in annexes to the Complaint and the Response and accounts of negotiations for Complainant’s attempt to purchase the Disputed Domain Name from Respondent, on or around May 26, 2022, Complainant first approached Respondent to purchase the Disputed Domain Name by sending a message to Respondent through the purchase Inquiry form noted above.

Respondent states that “Mr. Aishwin from Web Design HQ responded to the Complainant via email and corresponded with the Complainant on the matter thereafter, including on the sale of the <edmi.com> domain to the Complainant”. Complainant provides email evidence that the correspondence continued at least through November 2022 to purchase the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent claims that Complainant omits additional emails in November and thereafter in which a purchase price was agreed to and Respondent initiated escrow procedures for the payment, but Complainant subsequently found excuses not to continue based on “third party platforms”, “procedural issues”, and “budget cuts” before the escrow and sale was cancelled as shown in Respondent’s documents dated January 2023.

Complainant had no further correspondence with Respondent until it sent a demand letter to Respondent on February 24, 2025 that Respondent cease its unauthorized use of Complainant’s EDMI Mark in the Disputed Domain Name and “Transfer the Unauthorized Domain Name to our client for the sum of USD 5,000”, and included a threat to file an UDRP action against Respondent if Respondent failed to agree to its terms within 7 days. Respondent declined to accept the terms of the demand letter and this UDRP proceeding ensued.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s registered EDMI Mark as it incorporates the Mark in its entirety; WebDesign HQ Pte. Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated in Singapore with Unique Entity Number 201922813G, headquartered in what appears to be a shared commercial office space housing multiple entities, some of which include Global WebSoft Pte. Ltd., Incorp Pte. Ltd., Data Bird Pte. Ltd., among others.

WebDesignHQ is not associated with the Complainant in any way; Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and is not known or authorized to use the EDMI name or mark; that Complainant’s registered EDMI Mark is highly unique and distinct from other marks as it is a fabricated term with no dictionary meaning and that the EDMI Mark is displayed on Respondent’s website. Complainant further claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. According to Complainant, Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a legitimate use, nor is there evidence of any use or preparation to use it for a bona fide offering of goods.

Also, according to Complainant, Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant also contends that Respondent targeted Complainant and its EDMI Mark in registering the Disputed Domain Name and therefore Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Finally, Complainant argues that by incorporating Complainant’s identical registered trademark in its entirety for the Disputed Domain Name (e.g., the second-level domain), Respondent directly targeted Complainant and its established trademark rights for Respondent’s financial gain through selling the disputed domain at a highly inflated price.

B. Respondent

Respondent contends that Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Respondent contends that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because the Disputed Domain Name was originally registered by a US-based third-party, Electronic Data Management International (EDMI), in 1996; that on the expiration of the Disputed Domain Name in 2020, it was only acquired by the Respondent as a short four-letter pronounceable domain name for investment purposes, which is inherently legitimate; that registration of a domain name consisting of an abbreviated pronounceable word which also could serve as a person’s name because Respondent has a good faith belief that the domain name’s value derives from its common qualities rather than its specific trademark value, and use of the domain name consistent with such good faith belief would establish a legitimate interest;
That Respondent has been a domain name investor since 2012 and maintains a portfolio of hundreds of domain names, including over 200 4-letter domains. The Respondent acquired the 4-letter short pronounceable Domain Name <edmi.com> “as a professional domainer, and to him the disputed Domain Name is stock-in-trade”.

Respondent contends that EDMI is not uniquely associated with the Complainant, because numerous businesses use it independently, which widespread usage and the generic nature of the term demonstrate that the Respondent had ample legitimate reason to invest in domain name <edmi.com>, especially as part of a broader domain portfolio including other acronyms and first-name domains; “Complainant is relatively unknown” and provides sworn evidence that it had never heard of Complainant or its marks at any time prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and it has not targeted Complainant. Respondent contends that it uses the Registrant Organization solely as a business convenience and is located exclusively in India, has only visited Singapore one time in his life.

Respondent contends that it did not register the Disputed Domain Name with Complainant’s purported trademark in mind or with the intent to sell to Complainant, to disrupt Complainant’s business, or to confuse consumers seeking to find Complainant’s website. Respondent contends it purchased the Disputed Domain Name at the GoDaddy auction on September 12, 2020, because it was a domain name that appeared to be publicly available, a short, four-letter pronounceable domain name for investment purposes, brandable and inherently valuable that anyone was entitled to register. Respondent argues that “[T]here is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the complainant’s limited contention that the Domain Name was registered because of the Complainant in 2020”. Nowhere in the Complaint does Complainant show that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name for any purpose relating to the goods or services for which Complainant claims to trade. Respondent argues that it did not engage in bad faith registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name, and that it registered the Disputed Domain Name due to its attractiveness as a brandable short four-letter pronounceable domain name. Finally, Respondent contends Complainant’s conduct shows a classic case of “reverse domain name hijacking” where Complainant, after failed attempts to purchase the Disputed Domain Name, filed the UDRP complaint as a “Plan B” option.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

The onus is on Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent from the terms of the Policy that Complainant must show that all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established before any order can be made to transfer a domain name. As the proceedings are administrative, the standard of proof under the Policy is often expressed as the “balance of the probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Under this standard, an asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. See, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.2.

Thus, for Complainant to succeed it must prove within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and on the balance of probabilities that:

1. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
3. The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.

A. Preliminary Matter: Complainant’s Unsolicited Supplemental Filing
As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that Complainant filed with the Center a request for leave “to file a brief supplemental statement to clarify key points and correct factual misrepresentations made in the Response”. Respondent objected to Complainant’s request. No provision in the Policy, the Rules or the Supplemental Rules authorizes supplemental filings by either a complainant or a respondent without leave from the Panel. Paragraph 12 of the Rules provides that the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the parties. The Panel notes that the Rules and relevant UDRP panel decisions demonstrate a decided preference for single submissions by the parties absent exceptional circumstances. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. CBNO and Ray Redican Jr., WIPO Case No. D2000-0427.

The multitude of facts submitted by both parties, at times conflicting, makes for a finely balanced case. This has required extensive and careful review of the materials submitted by each member of the Panel, which although it has resulted in an extended amount of time to complete the review necessary reach its decision, unanimously, the time devoted to the care and treatment of each party’s arguments and unique facts in support of their position is warranted. Given these circumstances the Panel has decided to issue Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, which permitted Complainant to submit its requested supplemental filing and permitted Respondent to provide any comments on Complainant’s supplemental filing. The Panel further notes that it appears the substance of Complainant’s arguments here relate to the sale price of the Disputed Domain Name and would require the Panel to make a determination whether a particular price during negotiations between a willing buyer and willing seller should be used to determine bad faith. The Panel considers such analysis in this case beyond its province, unwise, and unnecessary given the more useful and less problematic factors present here that are more than sufficient for the Panel to reach its decision. One prior UDRP panel has held where an investor in domain names legitimately registers a domain name which appreciates in value, it is reasonable to expect the registrant to seek the full price it believes to be achievable for the sale of that name, specifically where respondent made no approach to the complainant and quoted the price in question in response to an enquiry from the complainant. See Costa Crociere S.P.A. v. Yoshiki Okada, WIPO Case No. D2018-1632; see also OMIS Group S.p.A. v. mediaWorld Advertising International FZE, WIPO Case No. D2025-2581. From the record it has been made clear that Complainant initiated contact with Respondent for purchase of the Disputed Domain Name and its identity was not kept hidden from Respondent during negotiations. Noticeably absent from the Supplemental Filing, given this second opportunity to raise it, is any evidence to support Complainant’s assertions of targeting, or actual knowledge of Complainant’s EDMI Mark.

Complainant’s Supplemental Filing does provide some benefit to the Panel. The clarifications provided by Complainant and Respondent in their respective supplemental filings are helpful to the Panel in reaching its decision and, therefore, in the exercise of its discretion pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel has accepted the filings timely received pursuant the procedural order and take them into account.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. Ownership of a nationally registered trademark constitutes prima facie evidence that the complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant claims trademark rights in the EDMI Mark for a range of electronic utility meter products and related software support services in Australia, New Zealand and the UK trademark registrations for the EDMI Mark referenced above in Section 4, for which sufficient evidence has been submitted in the form of electronic copies of a valid and subsisting certificate of registration in the name of Complainant, although the Panel was required to use its power for limited research of public records to ensure the registrations in Australia and New Zealand had been renewed and were still in effect.1 Complainant has demonstrated, therefore, that it has rights in the EDMI Mark. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657.

With Complainant’s rights in the EDMI Mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s EDMI Mark. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement and that the threshold test for confusing similarity involves a “reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name”. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel has considered a side-by-side comparison between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s EDMI Mark and finds the EDMI Mark is incorporated in its entirety and identical to the Disputed Domain Name, except for the addition of the Top-Level Domain “.com”, which is irrelevant in determining whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar. See, Research in Motion Limited v Thamer Ahmed Alfarshooti, WIPO Case No. D2012-1146.

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the EDMI Mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has thus satisfied its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant has the burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. It is established through prior UDRP decisions under the Policy that it is sufficient for Complainant to make a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name in order to place the burden of rebuttal on Respondent.; See Champion Innovations, Ltd. v. Udo Dussling (45FHH), WIPO Case No. D2005-1094.

1 Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name or accessing trademark registration databases. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.8. See e.g., Humble Bundle, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No. D2016-0914; Creative NetVentures, Inc. v. Webheads, WIPO Case No. D2000-1655.

It is clear from the record there is no pre-existing business relationship here between Respondent and Complainant. Complainant has also asserted that it has granted no license or other authorization to Respondent to use the EDMI Mark. Complainant submits that Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate use. Respondent argues, however, that it has equitable interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that it made legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name for resale as a short, brandable pronounceable term on its for sale site.

Often, in cases where a complainant has a registered mark and appears to have filed the UDRP complaint because it lost a bid for the disputed domain name containing its mark, the case becomes a matter of fine balancing of conflicting evidence to determine which side of the scales the preponderance of evidence falls. Complainant here has given the Panel assertions and speculation but without sufficient evidence to balance. Asserting without evidence that Respondent has no legitimate interests because Complainant has a trademark and Respondent’s portfolio contains a domain name that is the same is not enough for this Panel to find Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s EDMI Mark and targeted Complainant when it purchased the four letter Disputed Domain Name at auction. Although targeting is possible based on these facts, it is not probable or even more likely than not, and in reality it is sheer speculation until and unless supported by sufficient evidence to show it is probable that Respondent had Complainant’s EDMI Mark in mind when it purchased the Disputed Domain Name. That level of evidence has not been shown by Complainant here.

In contrast, Respondent’s evidence, including a declaration by its owner signed under oath with notarization to verify his signature under the laws of his country, shows that Respondent is running a domain name investment business offering brandable domain names for sale, which business model has been recognized by prior UDRP panels as capable of establishing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, provided the domain name was not registered to profit from and exploit a complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., Metro Sportswear Limited (trading as Canada Goose) v. Vertical Axis Inc. and Canadagoose.com c/o Whois Identity Shield, WIPO Case No. D2008-0754; and Bacchus Gate Corporation d/b/a International Wine Accessories v. CKV and Port Media, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2008-0321. See also WIPO Overview 3.0, relevant decisions collected under Sections 2.1 and 2.10. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides, “panels have accepted that aggregating and holding domain names (usually for resale) consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common phrases can be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the UDRP”. Section 2.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 clarifies that such business in domain names can include common words and phrases so long as the intended use is not to trade off third-party trademark rights.

Respondent’s evidence also shows that its “pronounceable four letter (4L) brandable domain business”, described by Respondent as the sort of domain name business where it had to be on the lookout for memorable domain names to buy, develop, and resell at high prices because startup businesses are in the market for memorable domain names and would be legitimately attracted to a name like the Disputed Domain Name for its intrinsic value as a four letter short and memorable brand for businesses, which pronounceable four letter terms may be very limited in availability in today’s market.

Complainant has provided no evidence to support Complainant or its mark as “well-known” or widely recognized by media or consumers such that the Panel could reasonably conclude Respondent had actual knowledge or even reasonably should have known of Complainant. The financial documents relied on by Complainant and incorporated into its complaint adduce no information about itself or the volume of its business and in which markets. For this information it refers the Panel to websites created by Osaki Electric Co Ltd, Complainant’s corporate parent, who, we are told, acquired the Complainant at an earlier date. When the Panel visits these websites, we find there is no reference at all to Complainant.
Accordingly, Respondent has demonstrated that it has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant has failed to meet its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the Panel’s finding on the issue of rights and legitimate interests, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of bad faith registration and use. However, the Panel considered the issue and in the view of the Panel, Complainant has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Any such finding would require not only that Respondent knew (or should be taken to have known) of a relevant trademark in which Complainant had rights, but also that it registered the Disputed Domain Name with the intention of benefitting unfairly from the goodwill attaching to those rights.

First, Respondent acquired <edmi.com> from a dropped domain name platform in September 2020. Respondent shows that it had previously been registered to a company whose name, different than Complainant’s name, also worked with that four letter acronym and abandoned it allowing it to return to the general pool for the first to register it.

Next, although Complainant boldly asserts that its mark is “inherently distinctive and strongly associated with the Complainant’s goods and services”, there is sparse evidence of that, such as the type suggested in WIPO Overview 3.0, sec. 1.3. Complainant states further that its mark “is fanciful, unique, and carries no dictionary definition. Consumers and industry stakeholders universally recognize ‘EDMI’ exclusively as the Complainant’s proprietary brand”. Respondent’s rebuttal to these assertions demonstrates clearly with persuasive search results that “Edmi” is used in the market by multiple businesses besides Complainant and is also used as a personal name.

Respondent has plausibly denied that it knew of Complainant when Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. In addition to the sworn, notarized declaration by Respondent denying such knowledge, there is no evidence that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant or its EDMI Mark and it is clear from the record that factors such as Complainant’s lack of a significant presence in India where Respondent is exclusively located, copies of registrations of the EDMI Mark submitted from jurisdictions remote from India after renewal dates without showing the registrations had been renewed, and Respondents evidence that the four letter acronym at issue here is not in exclusive use by Complainant as a mark, but used by many other corporate entities around the world, all support Respondent’s lack of actual knowledge of Complainant and weigh against such knowledge and against Complainant’s assertion that Respondent targeted Complainant or Complainant’s EDMI Mark in bad faith.

Finally, the Panel considers that Respondent was at liberty to register the Disputed Domain Name as a short, pronounceable four letter brandable term. Given the decisions of prior UDRP panels upholding business models for domain name aggregation and resale similar to Respondent’s as legitimate under the Policy, the Panel finds Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in acquiring the Disputed Domain Name and offering it for resale as part of Respondent’s brandable domain names aggregation business, especially considering that there is no evidence here of Respondent using PPC links to Complainant or its competitors or any other pretextual or illegitimate means to profit from Complainant’s trademark rights. See, e.g., Kubota Corporation v. Media Matrix LLC, WIPO Case No. D2022-3397

Complainant has failed to meet its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

E. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Respondent argues that Complainant brought this case in bad faith, as “Plan B” solely to obtain the Disputed Domain Name without buying it, after its attempts at purchase failed because the purchase price was too high.

Prior UDRP panels have held the circumstances present here to represent a clear example of a “Plan B” case, a stratagem described in many UDRP cases as “a highly improper purpose” that has often contributed to findings of RDNH., see, e.g., Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and Charter Communications Operating LLC v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Sheri K Corwin, WIPO Case No. D2017-0040; Jiggle LLC v. CHAD WRIGHT, WIPO Case No. D2025-3608.

To summarize briefly, even though the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s registered mark are identical, the Panel finds Complainant should never have brought this case without sufficient evidence in support of its claims and there are no “controverted facts that Complainant may not have been aware of”. However, it is surprising to the Panel that Complainant has provided no independent evidence of its reputation in the market, but would have us accept that it was a major contributor to the success of its Japanese parent. Given the salient facts: 1) that Complainant approached and initiated purchase negotiations with Respondent without any assertion of statutory rights, and over a period of several months after the inevitable haggling by both parties, a number appeared to have been reached, yet the purchase never closed; 2) Complainant has submitted no proof of any awareness by Respondent of Complainant’s trademark rights; 3) Complainant after walking away from the deal returned several years later to demand its preferred low price under threat of UDRP action and unappeased, commences a UDRP action claiming cybersquatting. The Panel also gives weight to Respondent’s declaration that he had no knowledge of Complainant or its EDMI Mark at the time he acquired the Disputed Domain Name. Under these circumstances the Panel finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking given the Complainant was not justified in bringing this Complaint based on a reasonable belief that it had a plausible legal basis.

7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

/Scott R. Austin/
Scott R. Austin
Presiding Panelist
/Gerald M. Levine/
Gerald M. Levine
Panelist
/David Andrew Allison/
David Andrew Allison
Panelist

Date: October 15, 2025

WIPO ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Home Run Franchising, LLC v. Leiby Goldberger
Case No. D2025-1832

1. The Parties

Complainant is Home Run Franchising, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by
Lawyers People Love, United States.

Respondent is Leiby Goldberger, United States, represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <dryerventsuperheroes.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2025. On May 8, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 11, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on May 15, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 15, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 5, 2025. On June 4, 2025, requested the automatic 4-day extension to submit its Response and a further 7-day extension until June 16, 2025. Respondent was granted the automatic four calendar day extension for response under paragraph 5(b) of the Rules. The Response was then due June 9, 2025. Complainant sent an email communication on June 5, 2025, commenting on the further extension request of Respondent. Respondent sent an email communication on June 6, 2025, maintaining its request for a total extension until June 16, 2025. The Center, in accordance with paragraph 5(e) of the Rules granted an extension until June 11, 2025, for Response.

The Response was filed with the Center on June 11, 2025.

The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott, Gerald M. Levine, and Steven Levy, as panelists in this matter on July 15, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Preliminary Matter – Pending Litigation

The Panel has decided to dismiss the Complaint and to terminate this proceeding because Complainant and Respondent are currently involved in related contentious litigation in the courts of the State of Tennessee, United States (see Leiby Goldberger et al vs. Thomas Scott et al., Case No. 22-1256-BC, Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee (complaint filed Sept. 21, 2022, Anne C. Martin, Chancellor), and; Leiby Goldberger et al vs. Thomas Scott et al., No. M2022-01772-COA-R3-CV, Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville (opinion filed July 9, 2024).

In Section 5 below, the Panel will provide factual background specifically regarding the trademark registration and disputed domain name that form the specific subject matter of the Complaint and Response. Notably, however, the parties to this dispute have been involved in several business ventures relating to franchising in various fields. The Panel excerpts here from the July 9, 2024, opinion of the Tennessee Court of Appeals (cited above) to provide context regarding the relationships among them:
Between October 2020 and June 2021, Lieby Goldberger and Thomas J. Scott formed four companies:
Dryer Vent Squad Franchising, LLC; Frost Shades Franchising, LLC; Magnetainment Franchising, LLC;
and Clozetivity Franchising, LLC (collectively, “the Franchising Entities”). A short time later, a third investor — Curt Swanson — joined as an equal member of each company. Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Swanson then formed Home Based Franchise Group, LLC (“HBFG”), to serve as an “umbrella” company for the Franchise Entities. [n1: The parties dispute the exact nature of the relationship between HBFG and the Franchise Entities, but they agree that HBFG was to provide centralized administrative services to the Franchise Entities.]

All five companies were formed in Tennessee, and all five were to be member managed, but only HBFG had an operating agreement, denominated as its “Stockholders Agreement.” The Stockholders Agreement named Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Swanson as the company’s “shareholders,” “directors,” and “officers,” with equal authority to conduct all business matters.

Mr. Scott was also the sole owner of a separate company, Brand Journalists, LLC, which provided IT and
marketing services to HBFG and the Franchise Entities. … When Mr. Scott agreed to go into business with Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Swanson, he was purportedly unaware that both men were or had been defendants in two civil actions involving another franchisor, Patch Boys Franchising, LLC. See, e.g., Anderson v. Patch Boys Franchising, LLC, No. 0:19-ev-03119 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2019). Mr. Scott was also purportedly unaware that Patch Boys had settled two state regulatory actions arising out of Mr. Goldberger’s failure to comply with state franchise law. See, e.g., In re Patch Boys Franchising, No. 54957 (Minn. Dept. of Commerce June 30, 2021). Mr. Scott claims to have discovered these and other undisclosed legal matters in June 2022.

Shortly thereafter, Brand Journalists stopped providing services to HBFG and the Franchise Entities because of a payment dispute. The cessation of Brand Journalist’s services allegedly caused a disruption to the Franchise Entities’ operations. Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Swanson then voted to “remove” Mr. Scott from the management of the Franchise Entities and HBFG.

Then, in August 2022, Mr. Scott sued Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Swanson for conversion, defamation and false light invasion of privacy, civil conspiracy, and breach of their duties under the Tennessee Revised Limited Liability Act.

Less than a month later, Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Swanson, and HBFG (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Mr. Scott, [et al.]. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Mr. Scott damaged HBFG and the Franchise
Entities by engaging in “wide-ranging activities,” … Based on these and other allegations, Plaintiffs asserted claims against Mr. Scott for business disparagement; tortious interference with business relationships; breach of contract; breach of the duty of loyalty; and breach of the duty of care….

Plaintiffs then moved for a temporary injunction to prevent Mr. Scott from (a) “directly or indirectly
disparaging or defaming Plaintiffs, including to their clients and contacts”; (b) “directly or indirectly interfering with Plaintiffs” business relationships and goodwill, including interfering with operations and property of Plaintiffs; and (c) “directly or indirectly assisting or offering to assist Plaintiffs’ competitors.”
Mr. Scott then filed a timely petition to dismiss the action…

After Mr. Scott filed his petition, Plaintiffs … dismissed their claims against Mr. Scott for business
disparagement, tortious interference with business relations, and inducement of breach of contract.

Thus, the only remaining claims against Mr. Scott were for breach of contract and his duties of loyalty and care. The above-quoted excerpt from the opinion of the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses what appears to be the single remaining active litigation among the parties to this dispute, although the parties have not clarified the extent to which additional related litigation may be ongoing in other fora. Each party has referred to settlement negotiations regarding the ongoing Tennessee litigation, each providing the texts of the same email correspondence among counsel (dated April 25 and 26, 2023). Per that email correspondence, a final settlement offer from Respondent (in this proceeding) included its transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant (in addition to providing a cash payment). These aspects appeared to be mutually acceptable to the parties, but a settlement agreement was not reached because Complainant indicated that it was unable to make a commitment on behalf of a third party that had initiated litigation against Respondent in a separate proceeding (and in a different state jurisdiction). The Panel references this correspondence regarding settlement to illustrate that the ultimate disposition of the disputed domain name appears most likely to be encompassed in a resolution of the larger complex business dispute among Complainant and Respondent.

5. Factual Background

Complainant is a limited liability company (LLC) with its initial filing in the State of Tennessee on August 11, 2022. Complainant sells franchises for dryer vent cleaning services, among other service-related franchises.

Complainant is the listed owner of registration for the word service mark DRYER VENT SUPERHEROES on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), registration number 7348629, registration dated April 2, 2024, in international class (IC) 37, covering air duct cleaning services and dryer vent cleaning services. The application for registration of such trademark was filed on November 11, 2022. Complainant also is the listed owner at the USPTO of a word and design service mark registration incorporating the term DRYER VENT SUPERHEROES CLEAN DRYERS PREVENT FIRES, registration number 7348796, registration dated April 2, 2024, in IC 37, with application filed on December 27, 2022.

According to the Registrar’s verification, Respondent is registrant of the disputed domain name. According to the WhoIs record, the disputed domain name was registered on November 15, 2022.

The facts and circumstances regarding Complainant’s business relationship with Respondent, and the
related timing of Complainant’s decision to register the DRYER VENT SUPERHEROES service marks at the USPTO, are the subject of dispute between the parties. Likewise, the facts and circumstances regarding Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, including the timing of the registration and the intent of its registration and use, are the subject of dispute between the parties.

6. Discussion

It is the view of the Panel that the facts and circumstances regarding both sets of issues, that is: (1) those
surrounding the legitimacy of Complainant’s claim to ownership of the DRYER VENT SUPERHEROES
service marks,1 and: (2) Respondent’s denial of abusive registration and use of the disputed domain name, including its potential rights or legitimate interests and absence of bad faith, are better addressed by the courts of the State of Tennessee where the parties are currently in litigation rather than before this UDRP Panel.

The UDRP was designed as a mechanism for resolving disputes in an expeditious manner based on the
written pleadings of the parties, without provision for examination of witnesses, without authority to compel the production of evidence, and without authority to sanction parties or their counsel. The courts of the State of Tennessee have such capacities and authorities. They are better placed than this Panel to make an assessment and judgment regarding the disputed factual assertions of the parties and their legal
consequences.

Moreover, the subject litigation in the State of Tennessee commenced nearly 3 years ago. A decision by this Panel might appear as an effort to preempt the authority of the courts of the State of Tennessee to
adjudicate the relationship between the parties, including ownership of trademark rights and the disputed domain name, even though that would not be the Panel’s intent. In any case, a decision by this Panel would not bind those courts.

This Panel could reach a decision on the law and facts in this proceeding if it was necessary to do so. This
Panel, however, has concluded that it is not the appropriate forum under the circumstances. It defers to the courts of Tennessee.

For these reasons, the Panel hereby dismisses the Complaint and terminates this proceeding without
judgment regarding the underlying factual or legal issues.

7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Respondent requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) against Complainant.

Complainant filed its Complaint in the context of efforts to resolve a set of disputes involving Respondent that include determining the legitimacy of registration and use of the disputed domain name. In the context of dismissing the Complaint and deferring resolution of this matter to the courts of the State of Tennessee, the Panel similarly defers any findings regarding the appropriateness of the filing of causes of action by either party, including this proceeding, to those courts. The Panel consequently rejects Respondent’s request for a finding of RDNH.

1 The Panel does not purport to have the authority to direct the USPTO regarding ownership of rights in a trademark, nor does it suggest that a state court in the United States has the authority to direct the USPTO regarding the identity of the owner of a trademark. However, Complainant is a business entity (i.e., an LLC) established in the State of Tennessee and the courts of the State of Tennessee have the authority to determine whether a locally established business entity, e.g., Complainant, has acted lawfully, for example vis-à-vis Respondent. Hypothetically, a Tennessee court could direct Complainant to transfer its interest in its registered service marks to Respondent, or to reorganize itself in a way that allocated ownership interests to Respondent.

8. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied, and Respondent’s request for a finding of RDNH is
denied.

/Frederick M. Abbott/
Frederick M. Abbott
Presiding Panelist

/Gerald M. Levine/
Gerald M. Levine
Panelist

/Steven Levy/
Steven Levy
Panelist

Date: July 23, 2025