Westmore · UDRP DecisionMyequifaz.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <myequifaz.com> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain combined “my” with a misspelling of the EQUIFAX mark, resolved to a parking page containing competing commercial links, and had MX records. The Panel found that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests and had registered and used the domain to attract Internet users for commercial gain.
The timeline behind myequifaz.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 myequifaz.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a cumulative bad-faith analysis involving a one-letter misspelling of a well-known mark, a commercial parking page, MX records, respondent default, and an apparent cybersquatting pattern. It also shows that adding “my” to a recognizable misspelling did not prevent confusing similarity.
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 Equifax Inc. v. 石磊 (Shi Lei) Case No. D2021-3319 1. The Parties The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, U.S. The Respondent is 石磊 (Shi Lei), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <myequifaz.com> is registered with DNSPod, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 7, 2021. On October 7, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 8, 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 October 11, 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 in English on October 12, 2021. On October 11, 2021, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on October 13, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 9, 2021. The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 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 states that it is a leading global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers. It offers credit reporting services that provide consumers with a summary of their credit history and other information reported to credit bureaus by lenders and creditors. The Complainant was originally incorporated in 1913, and its predecessor company dates back to 1899. The Complainant is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., and operations and investments in 24 countries in North America, Central and South America, Europe and the Asia Pacific region. The Complainant is a member of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The Complainant employs approximately 11,000 people worldwide. The Complainant owns numerous registrations of marks which comprise or contain the word “Equifax”. The EQUIFAX trade mark was first used in commerce in the U.S. and registered in 1975. The Complainant owns, inter alia , the following trade mark registrations in the U.S.: (i) Trade Mark Registration No. 1027544 for EQUIFAX, registered on December 16, 1975; (ii) Trade Mark Registration No. 1045574 for EQUIFAX, registered on August 3, 1976; and (iii) Trade Mark Registration No. 1644585 for EQUIFAX, registered on May 14, 1991. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name <equifax.com>, which was registered on February 21, 1995. The disputed domain name <myequifaz.com> was registered on March 9, 2019, and at the time the Complaint was filed, resolved to a parking page with links to third-party websites offering goods and services which are competitive with those offered by the Complainant under the EQUIFAX trade mark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trade mark in which it has rights. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trade mark except that the letter “x” is substituted with the letter “z”. This is a case of typosquatting, as the letter substitution is an intentional mis-spelling of the trade mark EQUIFAX, bearing in mind that the letter “Z” is next to the letter “X” on a QWERTY keyboard. The addition of the word “my” does not remove the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trade mark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the EQUIFAX trade mark in any manner. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name nor acquired any trade mark rights in “Equifax”. There has been no bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent in its manner of use of the disputed domain name. The third-party links posted on the parking page read as “Equifax Free Credit Report” and “Equifax Free Credit Score and Report”. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is evidence that the Respondent appears to have had a long history of cybersquatting and numerous adverse UDRP Panel decisions made against it. The Respondent would have been well aware of the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trade mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered as the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trade mark is famous and/or widely known across the world and its first registration dates from 44 years ago. The Respondent has also established mail exchanger (MX) records for the disputed domain name, which gives rise to the strong possibility that the Respondent intended or intends to use the disputed domain name to send fraudulent or phishing emails. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English, as the following circumstances show that the Respondent can read and understand English: (i) The disputed domain name comprises solely of a “typographical version of Complainant’s EQUIFAX trademark plus the English word ‘my’”; (ii) The webpage to which the disputed domain name resolves contains only English language content; (iii) Previous UDRP panels have found English to be the appropriate language for the proceedings involving the same Respondent ( e.g ., Sidley Austin LLP v. 石磊 (Shi Lei) , WIPO Case No. D2020-3004 ; Asurion, LLC v. Shi Lei , WIPO Case No. D2018-2335 ; and Diners Club International Ltd. v. 石磊 (Shi Lei) , WIPO Case No. D2021-1257 ). Requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would cause the Complainant to incur substantial unnecessary expenses and cause a delay in the proceeding. The Respondent did not respond on issue of the language of the proceeding. The Panel determines that it is appropriate for English to apply as the language of the proceeding. The Panel make its determination in the spirit of fairness and justice to the Parties, being mindful for the need to ensure that the proceeding takes place expeditiously and in a cost-effective manner. The Panel is persuaded that the Respondent is more likely than not to be conversant and/or familiar with the English language. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent has chosen not to participate in this proceeding and that the relevant communications between the Center and the Parties have been sent in both English and Chinese. On a balance of the competing interests, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese. The Respondent has not objected or shown that it would be prejudiced by a determination that English would be adopted as the language of the proceeding. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established it has rights in the EQUIFAX trade mark. The EQUIFAX trade mark is reproduced almost in its entirety in the disputed domain name and is recognizable therein. The Panel agrees that the substitution of the letter “x” with the letter “z” and the addition of the descriptive word “my” do not serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trade mark. (See sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition.) The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s use and registration of the EQUIFAX trade mark long predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Complainant did not license or authorize the Respondent to use the EQUIFAX trade mark in any way. Neither is there evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Equifax”. The use of the disputed domain name which incorporates a mis-spelling of the Complainant’s well-established EQUIFAX trade mark for a parking page providing competing commercial links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant’s prima facie case has been established and unrebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel agrees that it is not at all plausible that the Respondent, by pure coincidence and without prior knowledge of the Complainant and its EQUIFAX mark, selected the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes, based on the following combination of factors in this case, that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, with the intention to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the webpages posted on the Respondent’s parking page: (i) the Respondent’s absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; (ii) the well-known nature of the Complainant’s EQUIFAX trade mark; (iii) the Respondent’s creation of MX records; (iv) the type of links found on the parking page to which the disputed domain name resolves; (v) the failure on the Respondent’s part to respond in this proceeding; and (vi) the fact that the Respondent appears to have a pattern of conduct in terms of cybersquatting (see e.g . Valvoline Licensing and Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain Administrator, see PrivacyGuardian.org / Shi Lei , WIPO Case No. D2020-2485 ). The Panel therefore finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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, <myequifaz.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Francine Tan Sole Panelist Date: November 26, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around myequifaz.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.