Celsigo.com

The timeline behind celsigo.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Celsius Holdings, Inc. v. Rambo Case No. D2025-3560 1. The Parties The Complainant is Celsius Holdings, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Rambo, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <celsigo.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 3, 2025. On September 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 4, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 8, 2025, 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 amended Complaint on September 11, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 15, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 5, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 6, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on October 20, 2025. 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, a Nevada, United States corporation, was founded in 2004, and is a global functional beverage company with a portfolio of products, including its flagship CELSIUS brand of functional beverages in ready-to-drink (liquid) and powder form. The Complainant also offers an “ON-THE-GO” product line for its energy powder sticks, designed for consumers to mix with water while on the move. In June, 2025, and in connection with its aforementioned product line, the Complainant launched its largest advertising campaign to date entitled LIVE.FIT.GO. The Complainant’s products are available in the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region. They are sold through multiple channels, including conventional grocery, natural-food and convenience stores, fitness centers, mass market and vitamin-specialty retailers, and e-commerce platforms. The Complainant owns the following registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): CELSIUS, United States Registration No. 5,692,276, registered on March 5, 2019, in International Classes 5, 30 and 32; CELSIUS, United States Registration No. 3,154,473, registered on October 10, 2006, in International Classes 30 and 32, CELSIUS, United States Registration No. 3,667,840, registered on August 11, 2009, in International Class 5; and C CELSIUS LIVE FIT, United States Registration No. 7,066,857, registered on May 30, 2023, in International Classes 5, 30 and 32. The Complainant also owns several other registered trademarks in numerous jurisdictions worldwide. The foregoing registered trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “CELSIUS Mark”. The Complainant owns the domain name <celsius.com>, which resolves to its official website at “www.celsius.com”. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 21, 2025, soon after the Complainant’s launch of the advertising campaign referenced above and resolved to an online shop at “www.celsigo.com”, purportedly selling CELSIUS-branded products while impersonating the Complainant and copying the content from the Complainant’s official website. 1 The website included pricing of the products in United States dollars, which indicated that the products were directed primarily at United States consumers. The Disputed Domain Name’s resolving website also consisted of prominent and frequent use of the CELSIUS Mark alongside identical content and images from the Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because the Disputed Domain Name contains the prefix “celsi” of the CELSIUS Mark, followed by the term “go”, presumably referring to the Complainant’s LIVE.FIT.GO campaign, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, and thus does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; 1 As of the date of this Decision, however, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an error page with no substantive content. page 3 - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, among other things, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing the CELSIUS Mark, or a portion thereof, and the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant; and - The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, among other things, it resolves to a website containing the Complainant’s CELSIUS-branded products, indicating that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)): (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CELSIUS Mark as explained below. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the CELSIUS Mark based on its years of use as well as its registered trademarks for the CELSIUS Mark in the United States and jurisdictions worldwide. Thus, the Complainant has shown rights in the CELSIUS Mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the prefix “celsi” of the CELSIUS Mark, which is the dominant feature of the trademark, followed by the term “go”, presumably referring to the Complainant’s LIVE.FIT.GO advertising campaign begun in June, 2025, and then followed by the gTLD “.com”. It is well established that a domain name that incorporates a trademark, or a portion thereof, may be deemed confusingly similar to that trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of another term. As stated in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. Thus, since the Disputed Domain Name is recognizable as being related to the CELSIUS Mark, such use does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See e.g., Cantor Fitzgerald Securities v. Wanda J. Bradley, WIPO Case No. D2020-3051. page 4 Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is a technical requirement. As such, it is well established that a gTLD may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CELSIUS Mark. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first 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 a 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 that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often 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 forward 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 forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie 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 forward 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 finds that the Complainant has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its CELSIUS Mark, that the Complainant does not have any type of business relationship with the Respondent, that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any similar name, and that the Respondent is not a legitimate reseller of the Complainant’s goods. Further, the use of the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant to sell CELSIUS-branded goods on its own website does not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g.,... impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.”). The Disputed Domain Name’s resolving website not only impersonated the Complainant but also copied much of the content and images from the Complainant’s official website on the website. In addition, the website included a copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage stating “© 2025 Celsius. All rights reserved” and also featured a link to the Complainant’s website at “www.celsius.com”. This created the false impression of an affiliation with the Complainant and fraudulently claimed rights in and to the material presented on the website. There can be no doubt that Internet users and/or customers of the Complainant would have been misled regarding the relationship between the website and the Complainant and would have incorrectly believed that the website was that of the Complainant, or of a legitimately licensed distributor of the Complainant’s products. Such use cannot conceivably constitute a bona fide offering of a product or service within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Respondent is not now, nor has it ever been an authorized retailer of the Complainant’s merchandise. Based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website presumably promoting and selling goods bearing the CELSIUS Mark, and copying other elements of the Complainant’s website, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. page 5 In sum, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for 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 faith. The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, impersonation or passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy due to the Respondent’s impersonation of the Complainant. The Respondent attempted to pass off as the Complainant by creating a similar website offering CELSIUS-branded products without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant, thus demonstrating bad faith. Therefore, it strains credulity to believe that the Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its CELSIUS Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. See Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763 (“a finding of bad faith may be made where the respondent ‘knew or should have known’ of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the domain name”). In this regard, the fact that the Respondent featured goods bearing the CELSIUS Mark on its website also indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its branded goods. The Panel notes that the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, together with its use, affirms the Respondent’s intention to take unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the resolving Disputed Domain Name. In sum, the Panel finds that the Respondent had the Complainant’s CELSIUS Mark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name, another example of bad faith. The use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location for commercial gain demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainant. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). Moreover, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name was an attempt to disrupt the Complainant’s business. As stated above, the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name was also likely to confuse Internet users and the Complainant’s customers into incorrectly believing that the Respondent was authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. page 6 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 <celsigo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Lynda M. Braun/ Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: November 3, 2025

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