Westmore · UDRP DecisionCouponcabinz.com
The Panel ordered transfer of couponcabinz.com after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain reproduced the Complainant’s COUPON CABIN marks with an added “z,” constituting an obvious misspelling. The Respondent had used it for a coupon-related live-demo website advertising a website-template service. The Panel found no rights or legitimate interests and concluded that the domain was registered with awareness of the Complainant’s marks and used to attract users for commercial gain through confusion. Subsequent deactivation of the website did not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The timeline behind couponcabinz.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates a straightforward single-letter typosquatting dispute in which related website content and commercial advertising reinforced the inference that the registration targeted the trademark owner. It also shows that an unsupported claim of automatic domain generation does not displace responsibility for selecting and using a trademark-abusive domain, and that later website deactivation does not by itself defeat bad faith.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CouponCabin LLC v. Noman Noman Khan Case No. D2021-1897 1. The Parties The Complainant is CouponCabin LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Patterson + Sheridan LLP, United States. The Respondent is Noman Noman Khan, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <couponcabinz.com> is registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2021. On June 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 17, 2021, 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 the Complainant on June 21, 2021 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 22, 2021. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was July 14, 2021. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on July 16, 2021. The Panel takes note of the Respondent’s email communication of July 16, 2021 but does not consider it relevant to the outcome of the case, as is within the Panel’s authority pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 10. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 2021. 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 operates a business based in the United States through a website providing links to online discounts and coupons and opportunities for online cash back. The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations in the United States, including the word mark COUPON CABIN (Reg. No. 3666660, registered on August 11, 2009), the word mark COUPONCABIN.COM (Reg. No. 3666710, registered on August 11, 2009) and the word mark COUPONCABIN (Reg. No. 4509905, registered on April 8, 2014). The Complainant has been using its trademarks since at least 2002. The Complainant further holds the domain name <couponcabin.com> under which the official website of the Complainant is available. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through its <couponcabin.com> domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on December 10, 2020 and resolved to a “live demo” website with coupon related content to advertise a website template service. In the meantime, the website has been deactivated. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions within the due date for the Response. In its email communication of July 16, 2021, the Respondent mainly said that it did not register the domain name in bad faith, that it generated the disputed domain name automatically, and that it was ready to transfer or delete the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s belated email correspondence of July 16, 2021 is considered irrelevant to the outcome of the case. 6. Discussion and Findings Based on the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the COUPON CABIN, COUPONCABIN.COM and COUPONCABIN trademarks. The Complainant’s trademarks are wholly reproduced in the disputed domain name. A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662 ). This includes the addition of other terms or letters like “z”, which is considered a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark (i.e., “typosquatting”). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.9. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COUPON CABIN, COUPONCABIN.COM and COUPONCABIN trademarks. The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has credibly alleged that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for generating revenue by advertising a website template service while taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark notoriety. This cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use. Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, including the composition of the disputed domain name and reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The high similarities between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name make it difficult to believe the Respondent’s unsupported claim that the disputed domain name was automatically generated, and consequently without knowledge of the Complainant. Even if the disputed domain name was automatically generated, the Respondent could have taken some efforts to screen such registration against readily-available online databases (or a mere Internet search) to avoid the registration of a trademark-abusive domain name. The Panel finds that the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks along with the letter “z” creates a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name. The evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant support a finding that the Respondent is engaged in an attempt to pass himself off as the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website and to attract Internet users to his website for his own commercial gain. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma, WIPO Case No. D2018-2466 ). The fact that the website at the disputed domain name has been deactivated in the meantime does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For 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 <couponcabinz.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: September 1, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around couponcabinz.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore 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.