Theordinarys.beauty

The timeline behind theordinarys.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.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Deciem Beauty Group Inc. v. 王 士飞 Case No. D2025-3941 1. The Parties The Complainant is Deciem Beauty Group Inc., Canada, represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada. The Respondent is 王 士飞, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <theordinarys.beauty> 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 26, 2025. On September 29, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification 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 information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted For Privacy, Super Privacy Service LTD) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 4, 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 October 6, 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 October 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 30, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as the sole panelist in this matter on November 8, 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 As per the evidence provided with the Complaint, the Complainant is a global skincare and beauty company founded in 2013. Since its launch, it has developed more than 50 products that are sold in markets around the world under various brands, including THE ORDINARY. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for THE ORDINARY in various jurisdiction, including China where the Respondent is purportedly based. The Complainant’s portfolio of THE ORDINARY trademarks includes among others: Trade Mark Registration Number Registration Date Jurisdiction THE ORDINARY 015761182 December 8, 2016 European Union THE ORDINARY 016891781 October 16, 2017 European Union THE ORDINARY 1794388 April 10, 2017 Australia THE ORDINARY 5203537 May 16, 2017 United States of America THE ORDINARY 21258391 November 14, 2017 China THE ORDINARY 345308 June 29, 2021 United Arab Emirates THE ORDINARY 345309 June 29, 2021 United Arab Emirates THE ORDINARY 345310 June 29, 2021 United Arab Emirates THE ORDINARY 5925558 February 24, 2017 Japan The disputed domain name was registered on June 7, 2025. As per the evidence in the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website featuring the Complainant’s THE ORDINARY trademark as well as copyrighted images owned by the Complainant, and purportedly offering for sale THE ORDINARY branded products. The Respondent’s website displayed the following copyright notice: “©Theordinarys.Beauty 2025. All Rights Reserved”. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name leads to an error page displaying the notice “This site can’t be reached”. 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’s THE ORDINARY trademark is globally recognized; - the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark THE ORDINARY in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the letter “s” to the end of the mark. Taking into account that the Complainant offers beauty products, the adoption of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.beauty” enhances confusion; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard the Complainant contends the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, it constitutes misappropriation of the page 3 Complainant’s trademark and copyrighted works, and misleads consumers by creating a false impression of an association with the Complainant, which is not the case; - the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant and attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. This is evidenced by the fact that the Respondent refers to itself as “Theordinarybeauty”, thereby leading end users to believe that the Respondent is affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant; and - the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, which is prima facie evidence of bad faith. Based on the above the Complainant requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if found by the Panel, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy above. 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. The Complainant relies on previous UDRP decisions recognizing as confusingly similar and/or virtually identical the use of terms that are a slight variation from a registered mark (DaimlerChrysler Corporation and DaimlerChrysler Services North America LLC v. Peter Carrington and Party Night Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0756; Citigroup, Inc v. Party Night Inc. aka Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2003-0480; ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444; Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1259). page 4 The entirety of the mark is reproduced and recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s THE ORDINARY trademark except for the addition of the letter “s” to the end of the mark. In the Panel’s view this is an example of an intentional misspelling of a trademark that results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark, and a typical case of typosquatting. Accordingly, The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. The addition of the TLD, such as “.beauty”, is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. 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 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. Additionally, the website at the typosquatting disputed domain name purportedly offering for sale THE ORDINARY branded products is evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the circumstances, the Panel considers it likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, as a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, to trade off the Complainant’s reputation. Previous panels have found that typosquatting does not constitute a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. See ZB, N.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2018-1959 and the cases referred to therein. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s THE ORDINARY mark had been globally used and registered at the time the Responded registered of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, the content of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name establishes both the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and the Respondent’s intention to take unfair advantage of those rights. page 5 The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website allegedly offering THE ORDINARY branded products, without prominently and accurately disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant. Rather, by displaying the Complainant’s trademark and intellectual property, the Respondent’s website may mislead Internet users into thinking that the Respondent’s website is endorsed or permitted by the Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has used the confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently point to an active website and merely resolves to a webpage stating that the site can’t be reached, does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine given the totality of the circumstances in the present case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. 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 <theordinarys.beauty> be transferred to the Complainant. /Anna Carabelli/ Anna Carabelli Sole Panelist Date: November 21, 2025

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