Shop-bbc.shop

The timeline behind shop-bbc.shop

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 The British Broadcasting Corporation v. d's'da's'da's'd dasd Case No. D2025-3601 1. The Parties The Complainant is The British Broadcasting Corporation, United Kingdom, represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is d's'da's'da's'd dasd, Armenia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <shop-bbc.shop> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 5, 2025. On September 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 8, 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 Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf”) 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 10, 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 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Saisunder Nedungal Vidhya Bhaskar as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 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 is the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom. The Complainant is commonly known by the initialism “BBC”. The Complainant claims to be the world's oldest national broadcaster. The Complainant through its commercial subsidiary BBC Studios operates its official BBC shop from the website “www.shop.bbc.com” and sells merchandise through the same. The Complainant is the owner of a large global portfolio of registered trademarks that include the term “BBC” including the mark BBC in the United Kingdom bearing trademark number UK00001165760 registered on March 10, 1989 under class 16 and BBC SHOP in the United Kingdom bearing trademark number UK00906414312 on September 11, 2008 under classes 9, 35 and 38. The Complainant also owns the domain names <bbc.co.uk> and <shop.bbc.com>. The disputed domain name which appears to be registered on March 1, 2025, resolves to a web shop offering the Complainant’s products for sale and displaying the Complainant’s copyrighted images. The website at the disputed domain name also offers products not associated with the Complainant. 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 Complainant owns trademark registrations for BBC and BBC SHOP. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s BBC and BBC SHOP mark in its entirety and has merely reversed the order of the words. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not own any trademark registrations that incorporate the term “BBC” or “BBC SHOP”. The Respondent is not a licensee or reseller of the Complainant and has not received any permission or consent from the Complainant to use its trademarks. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide. Some of the products offered on the Respondent’s website are not the Complainant’s products, but directly compete with the Complainant’s products. 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 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. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. page 3 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 confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks BBC and BBC SHOP for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The re-arrangement of the words of the registered trademark BBC SHOP in the disputed domain name by using the term “shop” before the term “BBC” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds 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 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 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Complainant has stated, and the Panel accepts, that it has not authorized the Respondent’s use of its trademark and the Respondent is not sponsored, endorsed by, or in any way affiliated with the Complainant or its affiliates. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. 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 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 notes that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter. See for example Sennheiser electronic GmbH & Co. KG v. d's'da's'da's'd dasd, WIPO Case No. D2025-2862 and Supplying Demand, Inc dba Liquid Death v. d's'da's'da's'd dasd, WIPO Case No. D2025-2587. The Panel opines that it is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark registration which pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name by 35 years. On the other hand, the disputed domain name resolves to website that refers to the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant or to imply page 4 sponsorship or endorsement of the Respondent by the Complainant, is evidence of bad faith use. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BBC SHOP trademark. The intention to unlawfully enrich itself coupled with the administrative precedents against the Respondent proving that the Respondent is a habitual offender strengthens the bad faith element against the Respondent. The Complainant meets paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name <shop-bbc.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Saisunder Nedungal Vidhya Bhaskar/ Saisunder Nedungal Vidhya Bhaskar Sole Panelist Date: October 29, 2025

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