Hudas.beauty

The timeline behind hudas.beauty

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.

ARBI TRATI O N AND MEDI ATI ON CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Huda Beauty Limited v. 王 士飞 Case No. D2025-3728 1. The Parties The Complainant is Huda Beauty Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Rouse Consultancy (Shanghai) Ltd., China. The Respondent is 王 士飞, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hudas.beauty> (the “Domain name”) 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 15, 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 17, 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 (DT)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 17, 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 18, 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 24, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 14, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 15, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 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 was founded in 2013 by beauty blogger Huda Kattan. The Complainant sells over 100 beaty products in over 50 countries through over 1,200 retail shops across the world under the brand HUDABEAUTY. Beginning as a blog in 2010, Huda Beauty has over 57 million followers on Instagram, 7.7. million followers on Facebook and 4.21 million followers on YouTube. The Complainant is the owner of HUDA and HUDABEAUTY trademarks around the world, including China. The Complainant owns, inter alia: - the International trademark registration No. 1842704, HUDA (figurative), registered on November 12, 2024 for goods and services in international classes 3, 9, 16, 18, 21, 25, 35, 41 and 44; - the Chinese trademark registration No. 22864594A, HUDABEAUTY (figurative), filed on February 20, 2017 and registered on March 21, 2018 for services in international class 35; - the European Union trademark registration No. 015755549, HUDABEAUTY (figurative), filed on August 18, 2016 and registered on December 19, 2016 for goods and services in international classes 3, 9, 35, 41 and 44; and - the UK trademark registration No. UK00915755549, HUDABEAUTY (figurative), filed on August 18, 2016 and registered on December 19, 2016 for goods and services in international classes 3, 9, 35, 41 and 44. Furthermore, the Complainant is the owner of the domain name <hudabeauty.com> registered on April 3, 2010 under which it maintains its official website. The Domain Name was registered on June 2, 2025 and at the time of filing of the Complaint lead to a website (the Website) prominently displaying the Complainant’s HUDA and HUDABEAUTY trademarks and mimicking its website, purportedly selling Complainant’s products, copying product images from Complainant’s website. At the time of this Decision the Domain Name resolves to an active Website displaying cosmetics. 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 Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the 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 Domain Name; and (iii) the 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 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 HUDA is reproduced within the Domain Name with the sole addition of the letter “s”. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.beauty” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; and Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. 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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 Prior to the notice of the dispute, the Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as the Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name resolved to the Website, which featured Complainant’s trademark and suggested falsely that it was that of the Complainant or an affiliated entity or an authorized partner of the Complainant. Per the Complaint, the Respondent is not an affiliated entity or an authorised distributor or reseller of the Complainant and no agreement, express or otherwise, exists allowing the use of the Complainant’s trademarks on the Website and the use of the Domain Name by the Respondent. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel also takes into account the identity of the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trademark HUDA with the sole addition of the final letter “s” and the fact that Complainant also holds trademark registrations for the trademark HUDA BEAUTY, while it maintains its main website under its domain name <hudabeauty.com>. 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. 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. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the HUDA and HUDABEAUTY m arks had been used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by the Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant’s marks in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). This Panel also takes into account the content of the Website which mimicked that of the Complainant. The Panel also takes into account the identity of the Domain Name with Complainant’s trademark HUDA with the sole addition of the final letter “s” and the fact that t he Complainant also holds trademark registrations for the trademark HUDA BEAUTY, while it maintains its main website under its domain name <hudabeauty.com>. As regards bad faith use of the Domain Name, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name was used to resolve to the Website, which mimicked that of the Complainant and prominently displayed the Complainant’s registered trademarks, copying product images from the Complainant’s website, thereby giving the false impression that it was operated by the Complainant, or a company affiliated to the Complainant or an authorised partner of the Complainant. The Domain Name was therefore used to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website it resolves to. This can be used in support of bad faith registration and use (Booking.com BV v. Chen Guo Long, WIPO Case No. D2017-0311; Ebel page 5 International Limited v. Alan Brashear, WIPO Case No. D2017-0001; Walgreen Co. v. Muhammad Azeem / Wang Zheng, Nicenic International Group Co., Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1607; Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin, WIPO Case No. DCO2016-0034; and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/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 Domain Name constitutes bad faith under 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 Domain Name <hudas.beauty> be transferred to the Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: November 6, 2025

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