Thetipjar.xyz

The timeline behind thetipjar.xyz

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 Pocket Change Pioneers Ltd v. Christi Parrott, A2Zwholesalediscounters Case No. D2025-4233 1. The Parties Complainant is Pocket Change Pioneers Ltd, United Kingdom, represented by J A Kemp, United Kingdom. Respondent is Christi Parrott, A2Zwholesalediscounters, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <thetipjar.xyz> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2025. On October 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 2026, 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 (Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LCC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 17, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant on the same date requested suspension of the proceedings. The Center suspended the proceedings on October 17, 2026. The proceedings were reinstituted upon Complainant’s request, which also requested the inclusion of an additional domain name, the disputed domain name, on January 20, 2026. The Center sent a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name on January 22, 2026. The registrar on the same date replied and provided the information. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 23, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the registrar(s), requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the domain names associated with different underlying registrants or, alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. page 2 After the disclosure of information, Complainant requested a further suspension of the proceedings on January 28, 2026. The registrant of one of the domain names filed a response on February 2, 2026. Complainant withdrew the complaint on said domain name on February 3, 2026, and requested to continue the proceedings against the disputed domain name. The Center accepted the suspension request on February 5, 2026, and the proceedings were suspended until March 8, 2026. Finally, the proceedings were then reinstituted on March 10, 2026, and Complainant was requested to provide an Amended Complaint. Complainant provided the Amended Complaint on March 15, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 10, 2026. The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2026. 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 Complainant is a company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom that is active in the gratuity payment processing services industry. Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of various trademarks relating to its TIPJAR brand, including, but not limited to, the following: - word trademark TIPJAR, International registration (World Intellectual Property Organization), registration number: 1618435, registration date: May 21, 2021; - word trademark TIPJAR, European Union trademark registration (European Union Intellectual Property Office), registration number: 018235145, registration date: October 28, 2020. Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own the domain name <wearetipjar.com> which resolves to Complainant’s main website at “www.wearetipjar.com” used to promote Complainant’s business in the gratuity payment processing services industry internationally. Respondent, according to the Registrar verification, is located in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2025. By the time of the rendering of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website at “www.thetipjar.xyz” with no relevant content but the heading “Hello world” and a contact formular allowing to enter personal data and leaving a message. Also, Complainant has demonstrated that, at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was featured on a website at “www.flashcashapp.com” which copied marketing material from Complainant, including Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark and official logo, without any authorization to do so, thereby offering payment services obviously similar to Complainant’s business. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends to be the United Kingdom leader in gratuity payment processing services, with over GBP 100 million processed tips annually in the recent business years. Consequently, the name TIPJAR is an inherently distinctive sign for technology services relating to payment processing. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark, as it incorporates the entirety of the latter, only added by the term “the”. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent is unknown to Complainant and has never received any authorization to use Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark, and (2) the disputed domain name has been used in conjunction with the marketing and promotion of an apparently competing service that has copied Complainant’s branding. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) the latter is being used to market and promote a service not unlike Complainant’s business that, without Complainant’s authorization, has misappropriated Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark, its marketing material and its stylized trademark, and (2) in doing so, Respondent causes consumer confusion for commercial benefit, uses the disputed domain name as part of a campaign by which it is committing a passing-off to Complainant’s disadvantage, and also infringes Complainant’s copyright in its images and marketing material, as well as in the stylized TIPJAR trademark. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent's default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar First, 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 Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of its TIPJAR trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Also, the entirety of such trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, merely added by the prefix “the”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although page 4 the addition of other terms (here, the prefix “the”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel, therefore, holds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Second, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. In particular, Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name, and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the fanciful term “tipjar” on its own. Moreover, Respondent apparently does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide reason in relation to the term “the tip jar”. Rather, the disputed domain name features a website with no relevant content but the heading “Hello world” and a contact formular allowing to enter personal data and leaving a message, which is more likely than not to be used e.g. for phishing purposes. Such making use of the disputed domain name, therefore, neither qualifies as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair within the meaning of the Policy. In this context, UDRP panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (here, phishing personal information from Internet users seeking to find Complainant’s services) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel, therefore, holds the second element of the Policy has been established, too. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Third, 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. The circumstances of this case leave no serious doubt that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s business in the gratuity payment processing services industry and its rights in its TIPJAR trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name at the time the Amended Complaint was filed, and currently, resolves to a website with no relevant content but the heading “Hello world” and a contact formular allowing to enter personal data and leaving a message. The Panel further notes that Respondent, even though offered the opportunity, has not objected to Complainant’s page 5 submissions, nor has Respondent offered any explanation to the use of the disputed domain name which includes Complainant’s entire and somewhat fanciful TIPJAR trademark. Hence, the Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the use of the disputed domain name is related rather to phishing personal information from Internet users seeking to find Complainant’s services than for any bona fide purposes. Such circumstances are strong support to a finding of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In this context, UDRP panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (here, phishing personal information from Internet users seeking to find Complainant’s services) constitutes bad faith, too. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. For the sake of completeness, the Panel has finally also well noticed Complainant’s evidence that, at some point before the fling of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was featured on a website at “www.flashcashapp.com” which copied marketing material from Complainant, including Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark and official logo, without any authorization to do so, thereby offering payment services obviously similar to Complainant’s business. While it is not totally clear from the case file of how this website relates to Respondent and the disputed domain name, such somewhat bizarre inclusion of the disputed domain name in a context that clearly infringes upon Complainant’s TIPJAR trademark, at least supports the Panel’s above finding of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. The Panel, therefore, holds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy, too. 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, <thetipjar.xyz>, be transferred to Complainant. /Stephanie G. Hartung/ Stephanie G. Hartung Sole Panelist Date: April 29, 2026

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