Nakedorgans.com

The timeline behind nakedorgans.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 Naked Whey, Inc. v. Tirone Parker Case No. D2025-4061 1. The Parties The Complainant is Naked Whey, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Stoel Rives, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Tirone Parker, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nakedorgans.com> is registered with Rebel Ltd (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 3, 2025. On October 6, 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 7, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy Hero Inc.) and contact inf ormation 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 f iled an amended Complaint on October 16, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended 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 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 5, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 10, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on November 13, 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 Since at least 2014, the Complainant has produced nutritional and dietary supplements, including protein supplements, under the mark NAKED, as well as under various NAKED-f ormative marks. The Complainant owns a number of NAKED and NAKED-f ormative registered trade marks including: - United States trade mark No. 5,304,094 for NAKED WHEY, registered on October 10, 2017, in class 5; and - United States trade mark No. 5,900,057 f or NAKED, registered on November 5, 2019, in class 5. The Complainant operates a website at “www.nakednutrition.co m”. The disputed domain name was registered on January 18, 2023. The disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website that was branded “NAKED” and which f eatured an image of a “NAKED ORGANS”- branded product plus the headi ng “ORGANS. UNCENSORED”. The site offered “Custom Naked Capsules”/“the Custom Naked Organs Supplement” f o r sale as well as p ro d ucts such as Naked Whey and Naked Broth. The Respondent described itself as “Naked Organs”, and also stated that “Naked is a Private Membership Association...”. There was a “Nakedorgans” copyright notice in the f ooter. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter sent on Augst 21, 2025. When visited by the Panel on November 27, 2025, the disputed domain name redirected to a website at “www.bornsovereign.me” that appeared very similar to the previous website at the disputed domain name mentioned above, except that the site had been re-branded as “BORN” and, generally, references to “Naked” and “Naked Organs” had been replaced by “Bo rn” and “Born Sovereign”. However, various mentions of “naked” still remained, e.g., “Born Sovereign is a Private Membership Association... AS A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION, NAKED CAN...”. The name “Nakedorgans” still f eatured in the copyright notice. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the NAKED mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “o rg ans”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for 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 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 recognised 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed in section 6C below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, conf use and prof it f rom Internet users seeking the Complainant’s goods and/or services. Such use of the disputed domain name is not bona f ide. As to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, while the Respondent has referred to itself as “Naked Organs”, all the circumstances indicate that the Respondent adopted that name specifically to take unf air advantage of the Complainant’s rights. See further under section 6C below. Accordingly, the Panel considers that paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy does not apply. Nor is there any evidence that paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy is relevant in the circumstances of this case. page 4 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. In the present case, the Panel notes the f ollowing. First, not only does the disputed domain name include the Complainant’s NAKED mark, which is unusual and distinctive in this context, but the Respondent has used the disputed domain name f or a website that offers identical goods to those of the Complainant. Second, the Respondent has followed the Complainant’s practice of deploying product names consisting of the word “Naked” plus a descriptive term ref erable to the product. Third , the name of one of the Respondent’s products, “Naked Whey”, corresponds exactly to the name of a Complainant product, as well as to the Complainant’s corporate name and to one of its registered trade marks (see Section 4 above). Fo urth, f ar f rom appearing in this proceeding to explain and defend its position, the Respondent has instead simply redirected the disputed domain name to a differently-branded website, doubtless in response to the Complainant’s claim. In the Panel’s view, this amounts to an admission by the Respondent that its previous web site was illegitimate. Fo r all of the above reasons, the Panel considers that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark f or the purpose of sale of competing products in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel f inds that the 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 disputed domain name <nakedorgans.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: November 27, 2025

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