Allsouthcu.org

The timeline behind allsouthcu.org

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 AllSouth Federal Credit Union v. Stephen Yaple, All South Case No. D2025-3721 1. The Parties The Complainant is AllSouth Federal Credit Union, United States of America, represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Stephen Yaple, All South, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <allsouthcu.org> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 12, 2025. On September 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 16, 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 (Undisclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 16, 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 20, 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 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 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 William F. Hamilton 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 is a federally chartered credit union that has been operating since 1960. It operates 23 branches in South Carolina, United States, and serves more than 100,000 members worldwide. The Complainant provides financial and banking services, including checking and savings accounts, credit card services, online and mobile banking, teller and ATM services, and various loan options such as vehicle loans, personal loans, and home loans. The Complainant also owns and uses <allsouth.org> as its main domain name to promote its services and serve as a portal for its online banking and financial services. The Complainant adopted the ALLSOUTH and ALLSOUTH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION marks in March 2004. The Complainant owns the following United States trademark registrations: - ALLSOUTH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Reg. No. 2,977,711, registered on July 26, 2005, for Class 36 “Financial services, namely credit union services”; - ALLSOUTH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (and Star Design), Reg. No. 2,977,865, registered on July 26, 2005, for Class 36 “Financial services, namely credit union services”; and - ALLSOUTH, Reg. No. 6,118,269, registered on August 4, 2020, for Class 36 “Credit union services.” Hereafter, the capitalized term “Mark” refers to the Complainant’s August 4, 2020, registration for the mark ALLSOUTH. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <allsouthcu.org> on September 8, 2025. When the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name directed to an active website offering various credit union financial services, requesting personally identifiable information, and prominently displaying the name “ALL SOUTH Federal Credit Union.” The disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active 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 argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ALLSOUTH Mark. The disputed domain name prominently features the Mark merely adding the letters “cu” presumably an abbreviation for “credit union.” The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by that name. Additionally, the Complainant states that the Respondent is neither a licensee nor affiliated with the Complainant in any way. Furthermore, the Complainant claims it has not authorized the Respondent to use the Mark. Moreover, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith for commercial gain, misleading Internet users into believing that the page 3 disputed domain name resolves to a website that the Complainant endorses, is connected to, or sponsors, which provides competitive financial services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that a complainant must satisfy to succeed. The Complainant must demonstrate that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of such domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. 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, by virtue of the Complainant’s United States trademark registrations. The entirety of the Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 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. 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. page 4 Panels have held that using a domain name for illegal activities can never grant rights or legitimate interests to a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Here, the evidence showed that the disputed domain name was used to host a website impersonating the Complainant and to solicit personally identifiable information from Internet users. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has adopted the Mark in its entirety in the disputed domain name, which directed users to a website impersonating the Complainant, soliciting personally identifying information and offering financial products as “ALL SOUTH Federal Credit Union”, which constitutes a clear improper use of the Complainant’s registered ALLSOUTH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION trademark. The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name to host a website impersonating the Complainant and soliciting personal and financial information, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activities, such as impersonation, the solicitation of personally identifying information or the offering of misleading financial services, constitutes bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The continued holding of the now parked disputed domain name does not purge or diminish in any manner the finding of bad faith registration and use. The Panel notes that the Respondent’s subsequent deactivation of the website does not cure the Respondent’s bad faith; panels have repeatedly found that current non-use or post-complaint takedown does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. hc ac, luc lo. cd, WIPO Case No. D2024-0321. See also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel therefore 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 <allsouthcu.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /William F. Hamilton/ William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: October 29, 2025

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