Newsmaxllc.com

The timeline behind newsmaxllc.com

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 Newsmax Media, Inc. v. Accounts Payable Case No. D2025-2826 1. The Parties Complainant is Newsmax Media, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Saf enames Ltd., United Kingdom. Respondent is Accounts Payable, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <newsmaxllc.com> is registered with Namecheap, Inc. (“Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) o n July 17, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to Registrar a request for registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 17, 2025, Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed f rom that in the Complaint (e.g., the Complaint named “Redacted for Privacy” as Respondent). The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 18, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 21, 2025, naming “Accounts Payable” as Respondent. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Po licy”), the Rules f o r Unif o rm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was August 11, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on August 12, 2025. The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Complainant is a multimedia publishing company founded in 1998. It also operates an online news platf orm through its website at “www.newsmax.com” and a mobile app. It owns several registrations f or the mark NEWSMAX, including: - United States: Reg. No. 3,177,090, registered on November 28, 2006, f o r magazines. - European Union: Reg. No. 010951192, registered on October 24, 2012, f o r broadcasting services, print materials, and news and entertainment services, among other things. - United States: Reg. No. 4,708,616, registered on March 24, 2015, f or a wide variety of broadcasting services, among other things. Complainant has a related entity named Newsmax, LLC. The disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2025. Both at the time the Complaint was f iled and at the time of this Decision, it does not resolve to an active website. Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent on June 16, 2025, but did not receive a response. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. In particular: - The disputed domain name consists of the entirety of Complainant’s NEWSMAX mark followed by “llc,” an abbreviation f or the designation “limited liability company.” - To the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent has no rights in the term ”Newsmax”; Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its NEWSMAX mark. - The disputed domain name does not lead to any active webpage; however, it has activated MX reco rd s, meaning that email messages may be sent from addresses using the disputed domain name. - Respondent has concealed its identity. - There is no plausible use of the disputed domain name by Respondent that would not be illegitimate. - The email address provided by Respondent has been used in connection with three other domain names, each of which is similar to the name of a third party demonstrating a pattern of bad f aith domain name registrations that target others. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings To prevail under the Policy a complainant must prove, as to the domain name at issue, that: (a) it is identical or conf usingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights, (b) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it, and (c) it has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. Policy, paragraph 4(a). A respondent’s f ailure to respond does not automatically result in a f inding f or the complainant; the complainant continues to have the burden of establishing each element. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.3. The Panel may, however, draw appropriate inferences from the def ault. See Rules, paragraph 14(b). The Panel determines that “Accounts Payable” is the appropriate Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 4.4.5 (in cases involving a privacy service, Panel has discretion to determine appropriate respondent). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. Complainant’s mark is not identical to the disputed domain name. The entirety of Complainant’s mark is reproduced in the disputed domain name, and the Panel finds that the mark is recognizable. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of “llc” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in proceedings under the Policy is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the dif ficult 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 facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. The Panel f inds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima f acie 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. 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, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. Other panels have found that the non-use of a domain name, including a webpage displaying a “launching soon” message, does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. In the present case, the Panel f inds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent such a f inding here. In doing so, the Panel considers the totality of the circumstances: Complainant’s NEWSMAX mark is well-known; Complainant’s trademark registrations long predate registration of the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name combines the NEWSMAX mark in its entirety with a well-known abbreviation f or “limited liability company”--“llc”--which does not meaningfully differentiate the disputed domain name, making good f aith use implausible; Respondent did not respond to either the Complaint or to Complainant’s correspondence, and Respondent concealed its identity in the publicly-available WhoIs (as well as its likely use of false information in the registration itself), the Panel f inds that a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy is not precluded. The Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established. 7. Decision For 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 <newsmaxllc.com> be transf erred to Complainant. /Debra J. Stanek/ Debra J. Stanek Sole Panelist Date: August 22, 2025

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