Westmore · UDRP decision
WIPO · Case No. D2011-2027

Tweaksupport.com

TransferWIPO-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <tweaksupport.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered TWEAK mark because the added descriptive term “support” did not distinguish the domain and, in context, increased likely confusion. The Respondent had no demonstrated rights or legitimate interests, and the domain resolved to a website soliciting personal and credit card information as part of a phishing scheme. That fraudulent use, together with the Panel’s finding that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s rights, established registration and use in bad faith.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2012-01-10
Panelist(s)
Pibus, Christopher J.
Complainant
Tweak Unlimited Company
Respondent
Lui Harles
Disputed domain(s)
tweaksupport.com
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind tweaksupport.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind tweaksupport.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of tweaksupport.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

This decision illustrates a strong UDRP fact pattern in which a trademark is combined with a customer-service-related term and used for phishing. The Panel viewed “support” as increasing confusion because it suggested a service associated with the trademark owner, while the solicitation of personal and payment information supplied compelling evidence against legitimate interests and in favor of bad faith.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarMet
Rights or legitimate interestsMet
Registered and used in bad faithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case details
Provider
WIPO
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2012-01-10
Panel
Pibus, Christopher J.
Full decision
8 min read · hosted by Westmore

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Tweak Unlimited Company v. Lui Harles Case No. D2011-2027 1. The Parties The Complainant is Tweak Unlimited Company, of Killorglin, County Kerry, Ireland, represented by Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard, LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Lui Harles, of Morgantown, West Virginia, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tweaksupport.com> is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 17, 2011. On November 17, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Bizcn.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 18, 2011, Bizcn.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center notified the Complainant about a formal deficiency regarding the remedies requested, on November 21, 2011. The Complainant submitted an amendment to the Complaint to that effect by email, received my the Center on November 21, 2011. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint/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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 23, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 13, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 20, 2011. The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a technology company providing design and copywriting through customized marketing solutions for print advertisements, brochures, and flyers, including providing a variety of stock photographs, design templates and copy. The Complainant provides small businesses web-based design solutions to suit their business, marketing and advertising needs. The Complainant has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognition in the United States of America and internationally for their products and services, including the “PC Magazine Editors’ Choice Award”, and the 2011 Overall Dot IE Net Visionary Award. The Complainant was also recognized in “PC Magazine”, “TechCrunch Europe”, and “Print Monthly”. The Complainant owns a United States Trademark registration for TWEAK under U.S. Registration No. 3,951,347 dated April 26, 2011. The Complainant also owns an International Registration for the trademark TWEAK under Registration No. 1042106, which covers Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and China. The Complainant also owns and operates a website in association with the domain name <tweak.com>. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <tweaksupport.com> on July 25, 2011, and at the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to a website titled “Billing Support Center”, which invited Internet users to input personal and credit card information into blank fields. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark TWEAK, including U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,951,347 and International Trademark Registration No. 1042106. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <tweaksupport.com> which is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark, except for the addition of the word “support” and the “.com” designation. The Complainant contends that the addition of a descriptive word such as “support” does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a registered trademark. Furthermore, the addition of ”.com” top level domain does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not publicly known by the TWEAK mark, and the Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, because the Complainant has exclusive rights to the TWEAK trademark in the United States of America, and internationally. The Respondent has no past or current business relationship with the Complainant, and the Respondent was never licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. Further, the Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name, and has used the disputed domain name in connection with a website which misdirects or induces Internet users to enter personal and credit card information into blank fields for the purpose of using that fraudulently obtained information in what appears to be a “phishing scheme”. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons: (i) the Respondent must have known about the Complainant’s rights in the trademark TWEAK when it registered a confusingly similar disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent registered and is using a confusingly similar disputed domain name which reverts to a website which invites and induces unsuspecting Internet users to enter personal and credit card information into blank fields for purposes of monetary gain; (iii) the Respondent has a pattern of registering disputed domain names for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining credit card information for monetary purposes; and (iv) the Respondent failed to respond to cease and desist letters sent by the Complainant in association with the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights in the mark TWEAK by virtue of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,951,347 and International Trademark Registration No. 1042106. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name <tweaksupport.com> is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark TWEAK, except for the addition of the descriptive word “support”. The addition of a descriptive word does not serve to distinguish a disputed domain name from a registered trademark, and in fact can serve to increase the likelihood of confusion. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the addition of the descriptive word “support” actually increases the likelihood of confusion because it describes services provided by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel notes that the Respondent did not file any Response to the Complaint and accordingly did not contest any of the facts stated in the Complaint. The Panel is therefore prepared to accept the Complainant’s contention that its TWEAK trademark and its products and services have developed a reputation in the U.S. and internationally. In light of the existence of Complainant’s trademark registrations, together with its level of recognition and awards, and an established Internet presence through the website ”www.tweak.com”, the Panel is prepared to infer that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name <tweaksupport.com>. The Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Tweak”, or that the Respondent was licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark TWEAK, or has any other form of legitimate interest in the TWEAK mark. The Panel is also prepared to find that the Respondent has not demonstrated a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to a website which invited Internet users to enter personal and credit card information, which appears to be part of a fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(b) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel, upon review of the evidence filed in the Complaint, finds that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In view of the findings in paragraph 6(b) above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights in the trademark TWEAK, and that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it purchased the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name reverts to a website which invites Internet users to enter personal and credit card information as part of a phishing scheme to defraud participating users. The Panel finds this fraudulent scheme to be particularly strong evidence of bad faith under the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(c) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <tweaksupport.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Christopher J. Pibus Sole Panelist Dated: January 10, 2012

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around tweaksupport.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,871 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions.

LinkedIn
Insights
Briefs
Who Owns
Westmore
Research
UDRP
Support
Buyer-side only· Escrow-protected· NDA on request

© 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

A note on privacy

Westmore uses a few essential cookies to keep this site secure and running smoothly. Nothing about your identity or interest is ever sold or shared.