Redisdeskapp.com

The timeline behind redisdeskapp.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 Redis Inc. v. JIAAN FANG Case No. D2025-4016 1. The Parties Complainant is Redis Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by KXT Law, United States. Respondent is JIAAN FANG, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <redisdeskapp.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 1, 2025. On October 2, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Domain Name. On October 2, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response, confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 7, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was October 27, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on October 29, 2025. The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott K.C., as the sole panelist in this matter on November 6, 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 Complainant was established in 2011. It is a corporation f ormed in Delaware, United States, with its headquarters in San Francisco, Calif ornia. It is a provider of downloadable software goods, database sof tware, in-memory databases and database-as-a-service services. Complainant’s affiliated company is the registered owner of the trade mark REDIS (Complainant’s “Mark”) as f ollows: Trade Mark Jurisdiction Registration No. Registration Date Classes REDIS United States 5,894,148 October 29, 2019 9, 42 Redis Stack Logo United States 5,605,269 November 13, 2018 9, 42 REDIS stylized (allowed) United States 98,422,051 Application filed on February 26, 2024 (pending) 9, 42 Complainant has used Complainant’s word Mark REDIS since at least as early as February 2009, the Redis Stack Logo since at least as early as September 2010, and the REDIS stylized mark since at least as early as April 2024. Complainant is also the registered owner of the domain names <redis.com> and <redis.io>. It states that it has of fered goods and services under the Redis Stack Logo mark on these domains since September 2010. Additionally, the application for the REDIS stylized mark has been allowed but is pending. Complainant has used this mark since April 2024 and has sought registration of it specif ically in the colour red. According to the publicly available WhoIs, the Domain Name was registered on July 15, 2025, and as at the date of the Complaint the website resolved to a landing page advertising a desktop application called RedisDesk and provides a link to download that application on the Mac App Store, using some terminology f ro m Complainant web site which Complainant uses f or its own sof tware. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has been using, promoting and advertising Complainant’s word Mark REDIS f or over fifteen years, the Redis Stack logo Mark f or over f ourteen years and the corresponding domain names for over twelve years, and the REDIS stylized mark, including use of the color red, f or over a year. Complainant claims that the marks have become well known and are recognized by consumers as designating Complainant as the source of the goods and services so marked. Accordingly, Complainant submits that REDIS Mark and the corresponding domain names are extremely valuable to it. page 3 Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it incorporates Complainant’s word Mark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “deskapp”. Complainant submits that these terms “d esk” and “app” add to the confusing similarity, as both terms are commonly associated with sof tware applications. Complainant sells downloadable sof tware goods, including those ref erencing applications (or “apps”), such as computer software f or computer systems and application development, deployment, and management. Complainant believes that Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name is an intentional attempt to divert traf f ic from consumers looking to purchase Complainant’s goods and services by giving the impression that they are accessing Complainant’s website or a website af f iliated with Complainant. Complainant submits that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name and contends that it has registered the Domain Name in bad faith, especially as Respondent uses Complainant’s REDIS word Mark throughout the Domain Name landing page and other linked webpages in connection with the advertisement of a desktop application called RedisDesk. Complainant goes on to state that at the top of the landing page, the Domain Name describes the RedisDesk application as a “Native Redis GUI Client”, and provides a link to download the application on the Mac App Store. By clicking on the Mac App Store button, consumers are taken to a “www,apple.com” webpage advertising “RedisDesk – Red is Native GUI”. Complainant further contends that not only is the RedisDesk application confusingly similar to the computer sof tware goods and services claimed in Complainant’s various trade marks, but the application is intended to be used directly with or alongside Complainant’s sof tware. Complainant goes on to point out that the Domain Name’s landing page and corresponding application use a red logo that is conf usingly similar to Complainant’s registered Redis Stack Logo trade mark as shown below: Further, Complainant states that the Domain Name uses terminology and images copied directly f rom Complainant’s website for its own sof tware. For example, the Domain Name advertises its sof tware as “Customizable and Scalable”, and Complainant’s Marks and applications show that its sof tware allows f or “scaling” databases. Complainant also states that it uses these terms throughout its webpages. Finally, Complainant submits that the Domain Name lists a contact email address of [...]@redisdesk.com, which it believes to be misleading as consumers encountering this address are likely to assume that it is an of ficial customer support channel of Complainant by adopting an email prefix that is universally associated with technical assistance and customer care. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The f irst element of the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test f or confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s Mark and the Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Complainant needs to establish its rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark f or the purposes of the Policy at that date. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s Mark. The Domain Name contains the word “redis” and theref ore Complainant’s word Mark REDIS in its entirety, with the addition of the term “deskapp”. Insof ar as the Domain Name contains Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is conf usingly similar to Complainant’s Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of the above t erms “desk” and “app” may be relevant in terms of assessing the second and third elements, they do not, in and of themselves, prevent a finding of conf using similarity between the Domain Name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the 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 f acie case that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shif ts to respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (although the burden of proof always remains on complainant). If respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Panel f inds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant’s prima f acie showing and has not supplied any argument or any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In the present case, Complainant has shown that Respondent has used Complainant’s REDIS word Mark throughout the Domain Name landing page and other linked webpages in connection with the advertisement of a desktop application called RedisDesk described, notably, in the Mac App Store as “a Redis client built just f or macOS users.” These allegations are not disputed. Under those circumstances, the Panel inf ers that Internet users are likely to be led to believe that the said website is affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant, when in fact it is not. Having found that the Domain Name incorporating the terms “desk” and “app” which are both commonly associated with software applications is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark, this is likely to add to the risk that the Domain Name f alsely implies a connection with Complainant. Such activity is not indicative of any rights or legitimate interests. In addition, in the Panel’s view, the composition of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied af f iliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. page 5 Accordingly, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that f or 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 f aith. Complainant was established in 2011. It provides a range of software goods, databases, and database-as- a-service services. It is the registered owner of the marks comprising Complainant’s Mark. In addition, Complainant has used Complainant’s word Mark REDIS since February 2009, the Redis Stack logo Mark since September 2010, and the REDIS stylized Mark since April 2024. Such use predates the registration of the Domain Name on July 15, 2025 The Panel notes that the composition of the Domain Name, incorporating Complainant’s Mark and promoting a desktop application under a similar name RedisDesk, indicates that Respondent knew of and sought to take advantage of Complainant’s Mark when registering the Domain Name, and the f act that Respondent has not denied this supports that conclusion. The Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 Domain Name <redisdeskapp.com> be transf erred to Complainant. /Clive L. Elliott K.C.,/ Clive L. Elliott K.C., Sole Panelist Date: December 16, 2025

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