Decision

<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

Summary: 

The majority of the Panel held that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent, represented by Cylaw Solutions, demonstrated a legitimate interest by lawfully acquiring the domain name, which is a Latin dictionary word “ignis” to mean “fire.” There was no evidence of bad faith registration or use by the Respondent, who is a domain name investor. Additionally, the offer to sell the domain was initiated by a third party platform brandbucket, not the Respondent himself.

The majority of the Panel, Mr. Brown and Ms. Braun, rejected the claim concerning Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH), explaining that although the complaint was weak, it was not brought in bad faith. The timing of the Respondent’s acquisition and the Complainant’s trademark registration gave some perceived credibility to the complaint. The complaint was viewed as an overreach or a long shot but not an abuse of the UDRP process.

In contrast, dissenting Panelist Mr. Gerald M. Levine dissented solely on the issue of RDNH, arguing that this case is a textbook example warranting a finding of RDNH. Levine noted several key points in his dissent:

First, several third party trademark holders for “Ignis” existed before the Complainant, including the previous domain registrant, Ignis, AS.

Second, the Respondent acquired the domain name <ignis.com> on September 6, 2022, before the Spanish and U.S. trademarks were applied for or registered by the Complainant, making it impossible for the Respondent to have anticipated the Complainant’s trademark application or rights.

Third, Levine emphasized that “Ignis” is a commonly used Latin dictionary word that cannot be exclusively claimed by any single trademark owner. It is not a coined or unique term, and many market users predate the Complainant.

Fourth, the Complainant was professionally represented by counsel who should have known there was no bad faith or cybersquatting involved. Levine pointed out that counsel’s certification that the complaint was complete and accurate violated UDRP Rule 3(xiii), and he considered the complaint objectively groundless and an abuse of process.

Levine also cited legal precedents supporting RDNH findings in cases where complaints lacked merit and complainants should have been aware of this factually and legally. In conclusion, Levine stated that the complaint was an abuse of the policy and should be sanctioned. He criticized the majority’s reluctance to find RDNH as misplaced, asserting that this case perfectly fits the circumstances when RDNH applies.

Complete decision reproduced below (source wipo.int): 

---

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ignis Growth, S.L.U. v. Michael Bilde
WIPO Case No. D2025-1348

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Ignis Growth, S.L.U., Spain, represented by PONS IP, Spain.
The Respondent is Michael Bilde, Denmark, represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ignis.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 April 3, 2025. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. Also on April 6, 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 (Unknown Registry Domain ID: 3590508_DOMAIN_COMVRSN) and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 14, 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 on April 15, 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 the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 25, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,  the due date for Response was May 15, 2025. The Response was filed with the Center on May 13, 2025.

The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun, Gerald M. Levine, and Evan Brown as panelists in this matter on May 28, 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. Factual Background

The Complainant is in the energy business. It owns the trademark IGNIS and several variations of that mark (e.g., IGNIS ENERGIA), for which it enjoys the benefits of registration in various jurisdictions around the world. For example, it owns United States of America Registration No. 7,603,899 for the mark IGNIS, registered on December 17, 2024.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on May 29, 1997. The
Complainant asserts that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name on October 13, 2022. The
Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name was lawfully acquired on September 6, 2022. The
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to display a message that the disputed domain name is for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name was lawfully acquired on September 6, 2022, prior to any trademark rights held by the Complainant in the standalone term “IGNIS” as part of a legitimate domain name investment strategy focused on acquiring meaningful, dictionary or Latin-derived words. The Respondent argues that “ignis” is a common Latin word meaning “fire,” used widely and descriptively by unrelated third parties, and that he neither knew of nor targeted the Complainant at the time of acquisition.

The Respondent denies any bad faith registration or use, maintaining that the disputed domain name was acquired without reference to the Complainant’s brand or rights, and that any subsequent offer for sale, including an unsolicited outreach by BrandBucket, does not invalidate the Respondent’s legitimate interest or constitute bad faith under the Policy. Accordingly, the Respondent contends that the Complaint is both legally and factually deficient under all three elements of the Policy and amounts to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (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 Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element but not the second and third elements of the Policy.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 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. Id. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the IGNIS mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name incorporates the unaccompanied IGNIS mark in its entirety which – because the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) is disregarded under the first element – makes the disputed domain name identical to the Complainant’s IGNIS mark.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant).

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Respondent is not commonly
known by the IGNIS mark, (2) the Respondent does not have any trademark rights in the IGNIS mark, (3) there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, and (4) the display of a website offering the disputed domain name for sale does not confer any rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, the Complainant highlights two unsolicited, high-value purchase offers made via BrandBucket (allegedly linked to the Respondent), directed at the Complainant in February 2025. The Complainant claims these offers demonstrate that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and solely to extract financial gain from the Complainant by leveraging its brand identity.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing. However, the Respondent has
presented credible evidence in rebuttal, asserting that he acquired the disputed domain name as part of a
legitimate domain name investment strategy based on generic or Latin-derived terms, without knowledge of the Complainant. “Ignis” is a Latin word meaning “fire,” and the Respondent has shown it is a term used widely and descriptively by unrelated parties for various purposes.

The Panel accepts the Respondent’s explanation as plausible and consistent with legitimate domain name investment activity. The Complainant has not shown convincingly that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant’s mark or had reason to be aware of it at the time of acquisition. Nor is there persuasive evidence in the record to suggest the disputed domain name was acquired primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not established this second element under the Policy.

C. Bad Faith

The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in October 2022 with actual or constructive knowledge of its IGNIS trademarks and with the intent of profiting from those marks.

The Complainant also relies on two offers sent in February 2025 via BrandBucket proposing to sell the
domain for nearly USD 1 million.

However, the Panel notes that the Respondent has provided evidence that he acquired the disputed domain name on September 6, 2022, prior to the registration of any trademark rights in the standalone term “ignis” by the Complainant. While the Complainant does hold earlier registrations for composite marks (e.g., IGNIS ENERGIA), there is no compelling evidence that these marks had attained notoriety or widespread recognition (such as would support common law rights in the mark) at the time of the disputed domain name’s acquisition.

Moreover, and more significantly to the outcome of this case, the Respondent credibly asserts that it
purchased the disputed domain name based on its value as a Latin word, and not with the Complainant in mind. The disputed domain name consists of a common word with broad meaning across centuries and languages.

As for the purported targeting of the Complainant by the Respondent, the evidence tends to show that the offers to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant were initiated by a third-party platform, not by the Respondent directly.

The Panel therefore accepts that the disputed domain name was acquired not for bad faith targeting of the Complainant but because of the disputed domain name’s intrinsic value as a generic or Latin term.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has not established this third element under the Policy.

7. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The Respondent has requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”), asserting that the Complaint was brought in bad faith to deprive the Respondent of a domain name to which it has lawful rights.

The members of the Panel are divided on this issue. Two of the members reject a finding of RDNH, while
one member would find RDNH. See Circus Belgium v. Domain Administrator, Online Guru Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-1208 (three member panel was split on the question of RDNH).

Under the Rules, paragraph 1, RDNH is defined as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”. “Allegations of reverse domain name hijacking have been upheld in circumstances where a respondent’s use of a domain name could not, under any fair interpretation of the facts, have constituted bad faith, and where a reasonable investigation would have revealed the weaknesses in any potential complaint under the Policy.” Rohl, LLC v. ROHL SA, WIPO Case No. D2006-0645.

Majority Position (Panelists Brown and Braun)

While the Panel recognizes that the Complaint was ultimately without merit and rests on a weak factual and legal foundation, the majority of the Panel refrains from making a finding of RDNH in this instance. This is not because the Complaint is well-founded, but rather because the proximity in timing between the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark registration may have offered a glimmer of perceived credibility to the Complainant’s case in the eyes of its counsel. Although speculative and tenuous, the assertion that the Respondent may have acquired the disputed domain name with some knowledge of the Complainant’s mark, given their near overlap, provides just enough context for the majority of the Panel to avoid a finding of RDNH. The majority of the Panel therefore views the Complaint as an overreach or a long shot, but not an abuse of the Policy.

Minority Position (Panelist Levine) Panelist Levine respectfully dissents from the majority’s conclusion solely on the issue of RDNH.

In this Panel member’s view, this is precisely the type of case where a finding of RDNH is warranted. First of all, there are many trademark holders other than the Complainant for the term “Ignis.” Indeed, the prior registrant who abandoned <ignis.com> appears to have been such a mark owner (Ignis, AS). TM View lists numerous Ignis expirations as well as registrations. Secondly, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name which it acquired on a dropped auction (September 6, 2022) predated the application date for both the Spanish trademark (application date October 6, 2022, and registration issued on October 27, 2023) and the U.S. trademark (application date April 4, 2023, and registration issued on December 24, 2024). See WIPO Overview 3.0, sec. 3.8. Without divine intervention, the Respondent could not possibly have anticipated that a business operating in Spain was at that moment contemplating applying for a trademark registration.

I would also point out with double underscoring that the word “Ignis,” albeit in Latin, cannot be claimed exclusively by an owner who chooses that word for its mark, particularly where there are many other users that predated the Complainant in the market. Further, “Ignis” is no less a dictionary word because it may not appear in a standard English or Danish dictionary. Nor is Ignis in that category of words that anyone would describe as coined or uncommon as reflected by the many other market users.

Further, the Complainant was professionally represented. It should have been obvious to the professional representative that there could be no cybersquatting nor that the Respondent could conceivably have actual notice of the Complainant’s existence or of its plans. In this regard, the professional representative violated Rule 3(xiii) in certifying that to the best of its knowledge the information “is complete and accurate.”

Where the facts dictate sanction, it ought to be applied. See Pick Enterprises, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy,
LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Woman to Woman Healthcare / Just Us Women Health Center f/k/a Woman to Woman Health Center, WIPO Case No. D2012-1555 (holding that “Regardless of actual intent, Respondent has been put to time and expense to address a Complaint that the Panel finds objectively groundless, one as to which this Panel believes ‘the complainant in fact knew or clearly should have known at the time that it filed the complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the UDRP’.”). Also Cyberbit Ltd. v. Mr. Kieran Ambrose, Cyberbit A/S, WIPO Case No. D2016-0126 (WIPO February 26, 2016) (“[T]he deficiencies [of proof] must have been obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the Policy”)

The majority of the Panel concluded its analysis by noting that although it “views the Complaint as an
overreach or a long shot, [it was] not an abuse of the Policy.” It is precisely because the Complaint is an
“overreach and a long shot” that RDNH is appropriate. The Complainant offered not even a shred of
evidence that the Respondent violated the UDRP.

It is for the above reasons that I respectfully disagree.

8. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
/Evan D. Brown/
Evan D. Brown
Presiding Panelist
/Lynda M. Braun/
Lynda M. Braun
Panelist
/Gerald M. Levine/
Gerald M. Levine
Panelist

Date: June 12, 2025

Case number: CAC-UDRP-107301
Domain names: indiraivf.com

Complainant: Indira IVF Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
Complainant representative: Ankur Raheja (UDRPKing.com, Cylaw Solutions)
Respondent: Saurav Shinde

Comments:  The disputed domain name, <indiraivf.com>, was stolen in October 2024 by an unknown party, although the website continued to operate normally. The loss of control over the domain was only discovered in January 2025 during audits related to an upcoming IPO. The registrant of the domain name was discovered to be an individual who self-identified as an “Ethical Hacker” on his LinkedIn profile. During the UDRP proceedings, the registrant claimed to have purchased the domain via Facebook for $20 along with another domain name, presenting related evidence. The website itself remained online throughout, apart from a two-day outage in March 2025.

This case highlights that a stolen domain name can be recovered using the summary procedure under the UDRP Policy. However, to proceed under the UDRP, the complainant must demonstrate ownership of a registered trademark or establish common law rights in the mark. If the stolen domain name consists of a common word and is not trademarked, the UDRP process may not be directly available. In such situations, the ICANN Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) offers an alternative method for recovering the domain name.

Identification Of Rights 
Indira IVF Hospital Private Limited (“Indira IVF” or “Complainant”) is the owner of various registrations for the trademarks INDIRA and INDIRA IVF in the market of India. Trademarks were registered as both a word and figurative marks in class 44 (‘Medical Services’) in the Trade Marks Registry of the Government of India. All the trademark registrations of the Complainant significantly predate the start of the Respondent’s take-over of the disputed domain name (October to December of 2024), inter alia, Indian trademark INDIRA (Indian Intellectual Property Office Appl. No. 2566949) applied on July 19, 2013 and registered on April 26, 2018.

Factual Background
The Complainant is India’s largest fertility service provider, operating over 150 centers and performing around 40,000 IVF cycles annually, with plans to expand significantly due to rising infertility rates. Established in 1988, it offers advanced reproductive treatments and is known for ethical practices, innovation, and a strong network of experienced specialists. Backed by EQT since 2023, the company is preparing for a $400 million IPO in 2025, potentially valuing it at around $2.5 billion. The Complainant enjoys a strong presence online also via its official social media platforms.

One of the Complainant’s shareholders registered the disputed domain name on 19 October 2010 and linked it with an official website of the Complainant until this dispute has started. The Complainant last paid for the renewal of the Domain Name for 5 years on August 28, 2024 and it was renewed till October 18, 2029. However, it was discovered in January 2025 that the disputed domain name was missing from the Complainant’s domain name control panel. Consequently, the Complainant’s representative reported the matter to the domain name provider, Global IT Providers, Jaipur. They notified the Complainant that the Complainant’s domain name control panel was accessed from an unfamiliar location in October 2024, and the domain name <indiraivf.com> was transferred away on October 31, 2024, without the Complainant’s authorization. The Complainant informed about the cyber incident to the Indian enforcement authorities.

The domain name service provider confirmed that the transfer was initiated by an IP address, which belonged to an unknown person from India. The service provider also informed that a notification was sent to the Complainant’s email, however, it may have gone unnoticed due to the large volume of emails received at that address. As a consequence, the domain name registrar has been changed to Hostinger. Finally, the registrar disclosed the underlying WHOIS information on 25 February 2025. As per the WHOIS data, the domain name registrant is located in Pusad, Maharashtra, India and his LinkedIn profile further discloses that the Respondent is an Ethical Hacker by profession. Nevertheless, the Company’s official website remained hosted on the disputed domain name, posing a significant risk of web sabotage.

Parties Contentions

The Complainant

The Complainant submits that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

The Complainant submits that it owns valid and long-standing trademark rights in INDIRA and INDIRA IVF, with trademark registrations dating back to 1988 and 2015, respectively. These marks have been extensively and continuously used in India for fertility services, making them well-recognized. The disputed domain name <indiraivf.com> contains the entirety of the Complainant’s registered trademark and is therefore considered identical or confusingly similar. The mere addition of the “.com” gTLD does not remove the confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark. Accordingly, the first element of the Policy is satisfied, as the domain name clearly incorporates the recognizable portion of the Complainant’s mark.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as he is not affiliated with the Complainant and have never been authorized to use the trademark INDIRA or INDIRA IVF. The domain name was hijacked/stolen on October 31, 2024, through unauthorized transfer, and continues to host the Complainant’s original website content, creating a risk of misuse, phishing, and consumer deception. The Respondent, identified as an ethical hacker, is using the domain in a deceptive and unauthorized way, clearly not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has any legitimate commercial or non-commercial justification to use it.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered or acquired the domain name in bad faith, fully aware of the Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Respondent, based in the same region as the Complainant, transferred the domain to a different registrar without authorization and continues to control it despite lacking any connection to the Complainant. Evidence from the registrar and other online sources confirms the Respondent’s identity and shows a clear link between him and the hacked domain. The registration of a domain name confusingly similar to a well-known trademark, particularly when the Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the trademark, supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The circumstances suggest that the domain was taken over with the intention to exploit the Complainant’s goodwill and interfere with its online presence.

The continued use of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to bad faith, as it creates a false impression of affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent has deliberately used the disputed domain to attract and mislead Internet users for commercial gain, by creating confusion regarding the source and legitimacy of the website. The website hosted at the disputed domain still displays the Complainant’s content, indicating an intention to impersonate the Complainant and benefit from its established reputation. This deceptive conduct poses a serious risk of reputational harm, customer diversion, and phishing attacks. The use of privacy protection services by the Respondent further indicates bad faith by attempting to conceal identity and evade accountability. Such opportunistic exploitation and impersonation demonstrate a clear intent to profit from confusion and fulfil the criteria of bad faith use under the Policy.

After the Response was filed by the Respondent, the Complainant provided its additional contentions. Therein, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s explanation for acquiring the domain <indiraivf.com> is unconvincing, as the sale via Telegram lacks credibility and the Respondent is suspected to be the hacker or affiliated with the hacking group. The Complainant highlights that the Respondent paid a suspiciously low price for two domains, one of which was linked to the original registrar of the Complainant’s domain, suggesting unauthorized access at the reseller level. Despite the Respondent’s claim of ignorance, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the brand’s strong reputation, given its public online presence and celebrity association. The disputed domain name was suspended due to abuse reports, indicating malicious use, and the Complainant had to intervene to restore access to their official website to prevent reputational and business damage. These additional submissions aim to reinforce the claims of bad faith registration and use, and to support the request for the domain name to be transferred back to the Complainant.

The Respondent

The Respondent provided the Response in which he claims that on October 26, 2024, he purchased the disputed domain name through a peer-to-peer (P2P) transaction after finding a post in a Facebook group. He expressed interest in buying this domain name due to its high traffic and proceeded with the deal via Telegram. He states that he transferred the payment to the seller, who then provided the authorization code to transfer the domain. The Respondent asserts that he has all the proof of the transaction, including details of the person from whom he bought the domain and where the money was sent. He adds that he is now unsure about what is happening and does not know what to do next.

Rights
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

No Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

Bad Faith
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Procedural Factors
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Principal Reasons for the Decision
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark INDIRA IVF.

The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant presented prima facie evidence that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Furthermore, the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. The Respondent’s name does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

The Respondent did not challenge in his response the evidence that was presented by the Complainant, therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent meant Complainant’s trademarks INDIRA IVF when he took over the registration of the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, para. 3.1.1). Previous UDRP panels categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including the unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, para. 2.13.1). The Respondent’s claim that the disputed domain name was allegedly purchased via a Facebook group does not negate the fact that this domain name was acquired as a result of the Complainant’s domain names‘ management account being previously hacked. Based on the general legal principle that no right can arise from illegality (ex injuria jus non oritur), the Respondent’s explanation cannot absolve him of liability for the unlawful acquisition of the disputed domain name.

Previous UDRP panels have already established that redirecting the disputed domain name back to the Complainant’s website is also the evidence that supports a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark (section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0). In addition, the Respondent himself has confirmed in his response that the reason he was interested in buying the disputed domain name was in its high traffic. Previous UDRP Panels have also found that a respondent redirecting a domain name to the complainant’s website can establish bad faith insofar as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant (section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0). This threat finally turned into real damages for the Complainant when the take-over of the disputed domain name resulted in the short suspension of the Complainant‘s website for several hours which forced the Complainant to intervene and restore access to its official website in order to prevent reputational and business damage.

Therefore, the Panel came to the conclusion that the Respondent both registered (i.e. took-over the registration) and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be
indiraivf.com: Transferred 

PANELLISTS

Name Darius Sauliūnas
Date of Panel Decision
2025-04-24

Decision Online at: https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=680f3dd84481433a9c0ea212