Megaprsonals.com

The timeline behind megaprsonals.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 Sfanti Grup Solutions SRL v. Brett Liverman, megaparsonels Case No. D2025-3834 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sfanti Grup Solutions SRL c /o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States” o r “U.S.”). The Respondent is Brett Liverman, megaparsonels, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <megaprsonals.com> is registered with Purple IT Ltd (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2025. On September 22, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 3, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Domain Admin / Privacy Protect, LLC) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 3, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on October 3, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was October 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on October 28, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, Sfanti Grup Solutions SRL, provides Internet-based social introduction and dating services under its MEGAPERSONALS mark from its website hosted at its domain name <megapersonals.eu>. The Complainant also owns the domain name <megapersonals.com> which redirects to the website at the domain name <megapersonals.eu>. The Complainant’s MEGAPERSONALS trade mark is registered under United States trad e Mark Registration No. 6432591 in Class 45, having a registration date of July 27, 2021, and a f irst use in commerce date of March 30, 2004. The Complainant also asserts that its trademark rights have been recognized in numerous UDRP proceedings (see Sfanti Grup Solutions SRL v. Mohd Khan, WIPO Case No . D2023-4010; Sfanti Grup Solutions SRL c/o Walters Law Group v. DomainAdministrator d/b/a privacy.cloudns.net, Cloud DNS Ltd, WIPO Case No . DIO2023-0026). The disputed domain name <megaprsonals.com> was registered on June 11, 2025. The evidence provided by the Complainant indicates that at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that featured the Complainant’s MEGAPERSONALS trade mark and required an email address and password to log in. At the time of issuance of this Decision, the disputed domain name continues to resolve to the same page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MEGAPERSONALS trade marks, as the Respondent has merely removed the letter “e” in “personals”, and that the addition of the generic Top-Level Do main (“g TLD”) “.co m” does not affect the analysis as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the MEGAPERSONALS marks, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or has undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name has been used to phish for login credentials of the Complainant’s clients. The Complainant also claims there is no evidence that the Respondent has any connection to the MEGAPERSONALS marks, and that there is no plausible good f aith reason f or the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant therefore argues that the registration and any use of the disputed domain name must be in bad f aith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is widely accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test f or conf using similarity involves a reasoned and relatively straightf orward 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 Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the MEGAPERSONALS trad e mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Disregarding the gTLD “.com”, the Panel finds the Complainant’s MEGAPERSONALS mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, despite the omission of one letter. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.9. The Panel theref ore finds that the Complainant has satisf ied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing their rights in the MEGAPERSONALS trade mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to their mark. 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 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 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. There is no evidence to show that the Respondent, prior to the notice of the dispute, had used or demonstrated its preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services. There is also no evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or is making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert f actors or put f orth evidence to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case. Accordingly, and based on the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The third and f inal element that a complainant must prove is that the respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily f or the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered the domain name primarily f or the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. Other circumstances may also 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). For reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad f aith registration and use of the disputed domain name. When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the MEGAPERSONALS trade mark was already widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities. The Complainant’s registered trade mark rights in MEGAPERSONALS for its products and services predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. A simple online search f or the term “megapersonals” would have revealed that it is an established brand. Mo reo ver, the disputed domain name involves typosquatting by removing the second letter “e” in the MEGAPERSONALS trade mark, and resolves to a website displaying an identical copy of the Complainant’s mark and logo and requires an email address and password to log in. This demonstrates the Respondent’s intent to create confusion among Internet users who may f ail to notice the slight dif f erence between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark, and to obtain conf idential user inf ormation such as login credentials which constitutes bad f aith. Thus, the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a f amous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad f aith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. page 5 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 <megaprsonals.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Joseph Simone/ Joseph Simone Sole Panelist Date: November 13, 2025

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