Theordineryus.site

The timeline behind theordineryus.site

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 Deciem Beauty Group Inc. v. Cary Nedd, CaryNedd Case No. D2025-3942 1. The Parties The Complainant is Deciem Beauty Group Inc., Canada, represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada. The Respondent is Cary Nedd, Cary Nedd, United States of America. (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <theordineryus.site> is registered with NameCheap, 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 f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 7, 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 amendment to the Complaint on October 7, 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” o r “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 15, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 4, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 11, 2025. The Center appointed Lorenz Ehrler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a company active in the f ield of skin care and beauty. It was launched in 2013 and distributes its products all over the world, thus generating a turnover exceeding USD one billion. The Complainant owns more than 400 trademark registrations worldwide which contain or are comprised of “THE ORDINARY” (“Complainant’s Trademark”). One can mention in particular the following trademarks, all of them claiming goods in class 3: - United States trademark THE ORDINARY, reg. no. 5203537, registered on May 16, 2017; - European Union trademark THE ORDINARY, reg. no. 15761182, registered on December 8, 2016; and - Chinese trademark THE ORDINARY, reg. no. 21258391, registered on November 14, 2017. The disputed domain name <theordineryus.site> was registered on June 4, 2025. Bef o re the f iling of the Complaint, it resolved to an e-commerce website on which the Complainant’s products were offered f or sale using the Complainant’s trademark, and purporting to be an of f icial website of the Complainant or of an authorised reseller. 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 is conf usingly similar to its THE ORDINARY trademarks. It stresses the f act that the additional element “us” and the misspelling “theordinery” in the disputed domain name do not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. Furthermore, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to it in any way, and that it did not authorize the Respondent to use the trademark in question. The Complainant considers that the Respondent, not being an authorised reseller, is not entitled to use the THE ORDINARY trademark in the disputed domain name that resolves to a web site on which THE ORDINARY products are of f ered f or sale. Lastly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves in a way to create confusion with the Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY, which in its view constitutes bad f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or conf usingly 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 the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 holds several trademarks for THE ORDINARY. These trademarks are registered, among other things, in international class 3 (cosmetics) in many countries, in particular in the United States, where the Respondent seems to reside. The trademarks put forward by the Complainant are sufficient to found the Complaint. Under the UDRP, the identity or confusing similarity requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires identity or confusing similarity between complainant’s trademarks and respondent’s domain name. There is no requirement of similarity of goods and/or services (e.g., AIB-Vincotte Belgium ASBL, AIB-Vincotte USA Inc./Corporation Texas v. Guillermo Lozada, Jr., WIPO Case No. D2005-0485). The existence of a confusing similarity within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy makes no doubt in the present case. Indeed, the distinctive element in the disputed domain name, i.e. “the ordinery” is, apart f rom the misspelling (o rdinery instead of ordinary; cf. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9), identical with the Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY. Taking into account that the trademark THE ORDINARY is recognisable, the other element of the disputed domain name, i.e. the abbreviation “us”, which stands f or United States, does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 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 f orward 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. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has shown that it owns THE ORDINARY trademarks, and it has explicitly contested having granted the Respondent any right to use its trademarks. The Complainant has thus made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In line with previous UDRP panel decisions, this means, in principle, that the burden of production shifts to the Respondent (e.g., Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o, WIPO Case No . D2004-0110; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No . D2003-0455). However, as results from the case file, the Respondent of f ers f or sale goods identical or similar to those of fered by the Complainant’s group, by using the distinctive sign THE ORDINARY. Even though it is unclear whether the goods of f ered on the Respondent’s website, which is operated under the disputed domain name, are genuine products or counterfeits, and even though the Respondent does not identify itself on the Contact page of its website, the Panel must consider the hypothetical (but rather unlikely) case that the goods offered are genuine, and therefore examine whether the website meets the Oki Data criteria (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No . D2001-0903). page 4 While the Complainant (possibly) meets the f irst two requirements, namely that (i) it must be of f ering the goods or services at issue and (ii) that it must use the website to exclusively offer goods under the trademark contained in the disputed domain name, it clearly fails to overcome the hurdle of the third requirement. The third requirement is that the website must accurately disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. In the present case, this is far from being the case, as the Respondent’s website does not contain any indications whatsoever clarifying the identity and the relationship of the Respondent with the Complainant (e.g. as an authorised distributor). To the contrary, the website creates the f alse impression that the Internet user is on the trademark owner’s website, thus causing confusion. As a result, the Oki Data principles are not met. Since no other legitimate use is likely, the Panel reaches the conclusion that the Complainant has made a prima f acie showing that the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for legitimate commercial or f air use purposes. The Respondent having failed to respond to the Complaint, this Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must, in addition to the matters set out above, demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. The undisputed prima f acie evidence establishes that the Respondent is not af f iliated with the Complainant, and has no license or other authorisation to use the Complainant’s trademark or name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name well af ter the Complainant’s mark was in use and became known within its specific product market. The Panel f inds that the Respondent must have known about the Complainant’s trademark and business when registering the disputed domain name. Given the use to which the Respondent put the disputed domain name shortly af ter registering it, it seems totally impossible to this Panel that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the THE ORDINARY trademark with a typo, and its offering of goods identical or similar to the Complainant’s under the latter’s trademark THE ORDINARY, indicates indeed that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark THE ORDINARY. Even in the unlikely event that the Complainant of f ers genuine THE ORDINARY goods (e.g. as a non- authorised reseller) rather than counterfeits, the misleading of Internet users and consumers into thinking that the Respondent is, in some way or another, connected to, sponsored by or af f iliated with the Complainant and its business, or that the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the Complainant, indicates bad f aith (Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. bingbing chen, WIPO Case No . D2011-1524). The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s claims and assertions. In the absence of such evidence and based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant and having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <theordineryus.site> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Lorenz Ehrler/ Lorenz Ehrler Sole Panelist Date: December 3, 2025

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