Povbeautyshop.com

The timeline behind povbeautyshop.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 Point of View, Inc. v. Azeed Hussain Case No. D2025-4064 1. The Parties The Complainant is Point of View, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Ropes & Gray LLP, United States. The Respondent is Azeed Hussain, Ind ia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <povbeautyshop.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 6, 2025. On October 7, 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 8, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Unkno wn) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 10, 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 15, 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 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 11, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Estela Mariel de Luca as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 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, Point of View, Inc., is a United States company, specializing in the skincare sector. The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations, including: - Canadian Trademark Registration No. 1,522,341 f or P.O.V., in international classes 3 and 5, registered on February 14, 2013; - International Trademark Registration No. 1,796,072 f or P.O.V. BEAUTY, in international class 3, registered on May 31, 2024; - International Trademark Registration No. 1,796,074 f or POINT OF VIEW, in international class 3, registered on May 31, 2024. In addition, the Complainant owns the domain name <povbeauty.com>, registered on January 18, 2019. The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2025, and resolves to a website purportedly of f ering products similar to those of the Complainant. 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 phonetically confusingly similar to the P.O.V. BEAUTY mark and the domain name <povbeauty.com>; and that the addition of the term “shop” may lead users to assume a commercial association or an of f icial outlet connected with the Complainant. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests for the registration and use of the disputed domain name, noting that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, has not been authorized or otherwise af f iliated with the Complainant, and that there is no evidence that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with any bona f ide of f ering of goods or services. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has replicated elements associated with the Complainant’s website and is using the disputed domain name to sell skin care products, which, according to the Complainant, reflects an intention to take unfair advantage of the goodwill in the Complainant’s Marks and to attract consumers f or commercial gain. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transf erred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. The Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in f avor of the Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f ) of the Rules provides that if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inf erences f rom the Respondent’s f ailure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. 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 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of the term “shop” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed 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 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. 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. page 4 The disputed domain name resolves to a website that reproduces the registered trademark POINT OF VIEW in a similar style as in the Complainant’s of f icial website while allegedly of f ering skin care products. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activities – such as impersonation or passing off – can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel also notes that the composition of the disputed domain name creates a risk of implied affiliation or suggests sponsorship and/or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Accordingly, the Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima f acie claim that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 that the Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s mark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, impersonation / passing off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under 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 <povbeautyshop.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Estela Mariel de Luca/ Estela Mariel de Luca Sole Panelist Date: November 30, 2025

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