Westmore · UDRP DecisionHitch-advisory.com
The Panel ordered cancellation of <hitch-advisory.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered HITCH ADVISORY mark because it incorporated the mark with only a hyphen. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and evidence that the domain was used for fraudulent email activity established bad-faith registration and use. The Respondent did not file a response.
The timeline behind hitch-advisory.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 hitch-advisory.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that a domain reproducing a mark with only a hyphen can satisfy confusing similarity and that use of a lookalike domain for fraudulent email activity can simultaneously defeat any claim to legitimate interests and establish bad-faith registration and use. It also shows that actionable misuse may occur through domain-associated email addresses even when the visible website is only a registrar parking page.
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 Hitch Advisory v. Mbaku Gorilla Case No. D2021-2896 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hitch Advisory, Australia, represented internally. The Respondent is Mbaku Gorilla, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hitch-advisory.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 1, 2021. On September 3, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 3, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the Domain Name. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 10, 2021. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on October 14, 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 is based in Australia and offers business and legal services. The Complainant has rights in the Australian Trademark Reg. No. 1774962, HITCH ADVISORY, registered on June 3, 2016. The Complainant has its website, and uses an email address connected to the domain name <hitchadvisory.com>. The Domain Name in was registered on February 11, 2021. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a registrar parking webpage with commercial links. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the Domain Name has been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registration. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Complainant has submitted documents showing that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to set up email accounts in an attempt to defraud some of the Complainant’s clients into divulging personal information. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract, for fraudulent commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the affiliation with and endorsement of the Respondent’s online location. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark HITCH ADVISORY. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of a hyphen. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.8. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its trademark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. Based on the evidence in the Complaint, the Domain Name seems to be employed in a fraudulent email scheme. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide , but rather evidence of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the malicious use of the Domain Name, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to online locations, namely email addresses associated with the Domain Name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Furthermore, use of the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails is clear evidence of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name <hitch-advisory.com> be cancelled. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: October 26, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around hitch-advisory.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.