Equifax.space

The timeline behind equifax.space

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

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

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Equifax Inc. v. Alejandro Martinez, Equifax Case No. D2025-1164 1. The Parties The Complainant is Equif ax Inc., United States of America (“United States” o r “USA”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Alejandro Martinez, Equif ax, Colombia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <equifax.space> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 20, 2025. On March 21, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 25, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on March 26, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f o rmal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” o r “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 17, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on April 22, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Erick Iriarte as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 Complainant is a company provider of inf ormation solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services f or businesses, governments and consumers, was originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia (USA) in 1913, and its predecessor company dates back to 1899. Annex 9 of the Complaint includes a large list of trademarks registered by the Complainant around the world. Complainant said they “owns at least 221 trademark registrations in at least 56 jurisdictions around the world f or marks that consist of or contain the wo rd “Equifax”, which was first used in commerce and registered in 1975”. All the trademarks in this case were registered bef ore the registration of the disputed domain name (March 7, 2025). Particularly, the Panel ref ers to the f ollowing EQUIFAX trademark registrations as ref erence: Colombian Trademarks: Register Number: 185350 Register Date: March 18, 1996 Class: 35 Register Number: 185353 Register Date: March 18, 1996 Class: 42 Register Number: 185349 Register Date: March 18, 1996 Class: 16 Register Number: 185351 Register Date: March 18, 1996 Class: 38 The disputed domain name <equifax.space> was created on March 7, 2025. It was registered by Alejandro Martinez and the registrant organization is shown as “Equif ax”. The disputed domain name is currently still in use. The disputed domain name is linked to a website displaying the Complainant’s logo and using a similar color scheme that the Complainant uses on its own website, along with a f orm box that says (translated f rom Spanish), “Enter your document number to validate.”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that that the disputed domain name is completely identical to its trademark registered in various jurisdictions, including that of the disputed domain name holder. It has also indicated that the use of the disputed domain name involves potential impersonation and possible use of the disputed domain name f or phishing. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (o r threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightf orward 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. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark f o r the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring inf ormation that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima f acie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shif ts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) o f the Policy, paragraph 4(b ) o f the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. The Panel f inds that the Complainant’s trademark EQUIFAX is widely known, the oldest of which was used and registered 50 years ago. Theref ore, the Panel finds that is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case : impersonation constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the reco rd , the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision Fo r the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <equif ax.space> be transf erred to the Complainant /Erick Iriarte/ Erick Iriarte Sole Panelist Date: May 16, 2025

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