Propelerads.com

The timeline behind propelerads.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Adtech Holding Ltd v. julia nikitina, Julka Holdings Limited Case No. D2025-4259 1. The Parties The Complainant is Adtech Holding Ltd, Cyprus, represented by Stepan Korostelev, Cyprus. The Respondent is julia nikitina, Julka Holdings Limited, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <propelerads.com> 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 17, 2025. On October 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 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 (Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 23, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center received a communication from the email address connected to the disputed domain name as identified by the Registrar on October 23, 2025. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 27, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center commenced the panel appointment process on November 20, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on November 21, 2025. 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 The Complainant is a company registered in Cyprus in 2016. It is the holding company of the group of companies operating the PropellerAds Advertising Platform – an online advertising platform for the distribution of advertising materials and the monetization of online traffic. The Complainant is a member 1 of the European division of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the organization responsible for development of advertising industry standards worldwide. The PropellerAds platform is being operated through the Complainant’s official website at the domain name <propellerads.com>, registered since May 25, 2011. The earliest archived copy of the website of the PropellerAds platform at the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine is dated December 27, 2011, 2 and the website had the following appearance at the time: The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for PROPELLERADS (the “PROPELLERADS trademark”): − the European Union word trademark PROPELLERADS with registration No. 018908500, registered on November 15, 2023 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, 38, and 42; and − the European Union combined trademark with registration No. 018908650, registered on November 14, 2023 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, 38, and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on November 15, 2013. It resolves to a website that browsers indicate as “Not secure”. The website has the page title “Propelerads, Propelerad, propellerads, propellerad”, and the following heading with links to internal pages on various unrelated topics: 1 See “https://iabeurope.eu/directory/propellerads/”. 2 “https://web.archive.org/web/20111227112302/http://www.propellerads.com/”. page 3 The title page of the website also displays a material with the title “Propeller Ads Scam Reveals [with proof]” containing criticisms against the PropellerAds Advertising Platform, and the following footer: The copyright notice in the footer reads as follows: “All the content is copyrighted to NIKHIL VIJAY M K...”. The above links to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Instagram profiles are blocked by the respective platforms and are inaccessible. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the registrant of the disputed domain name is julia nikitina, Julka Holdings Limited. The registrant’s email address however refers to a different person, and such person contacted the Center with an email communication from the same email address in the course of the proceeding. The Panel’s conclusions in respect of the identity of the Respondent are included in section 6.1 below. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is a confusingly similar misspelling of its PROPELLERADS trademark. According to the Complainant, the omission of the letter “l” is probably the easiest and the most confusing mistake that could be made when typing the PROPELLERADS trademark, and there is a high risk that an average Internet user searching for the Complainant may make such a typo and arrive on the website at the disputed domain name, which distributes defamatory content about the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because it is not commonly known by it and has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the PROPELLERADS trademark in a domain name. The Complainant points out that the disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and of its primary domain name <propellerads.com>, and adds that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a blog named “eTechlic” to publish false or misleading content about the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to it, the disputed domain name is an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s PROPELLERADS trademark and was deliberately chosen by the Respondent to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source or affiliation of the associated website, which accuses the Complainant of operating a “scam”. The Complainant states that the accusations of the Respondent distributed through the website at the disputed domain name have no factual grounds and are purely defamatory, as the Respondent does not provide any reasonable and proven facts to support these accusations. The Complainant maintains that this results in intentional tarnishment and damage of its trademark. page 4 The Complainant submits that as a result of the continuous commercial use of its PROPELLERADS brand since 2011, it has become widely known, which has been confirmed by the Interactive Advertising Bureau. The Complainant maintains that in view of the above, the Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the PROPELLERADS brand, although the Complainant registered it as a trademark after the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that the content of the website at the disputed domain name confirms the Respondent’s knowledge and targeting of the Complainant. The Complainant further points out that the circumstances surrounding the registration of the disputed domain name demonstrate that the Respondent has acted with the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. The Complainant notes that the registrant contact email disclosed by the Registrar belongs to the founder of Adcash, an online advertising platform that operates in the same industry and market segment as the Complainant’s service, which is also evident from this individual’s personal page at LinkedIn. The Complainant notes that Adcash is a direct competitor of the Complainant, which indicates that the registration of the disputed domain name was made with the aim of causing commercial harm through distribution of defamatory content about the Complainant’s business. The Complainant notes that it sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, but it never responded. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The following email message was sent to the Center from the email address indicated by the Registrar for the registrant of the disputed domain name: “Dear Sir, Could you please provide me all the information regarding this complain ? (sic)” No further message was sent to the Center from this email, although the Center responded to this message and sent to this email address all its communications in the course of the present proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary issue – Identity of the Respondent According to the information provided by the Registrar, the registrant of the disputed domain name is julia nikitina, Julka Holdings Limited, Hong Kong, China. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that indicates its operator as Mr. Nikhil Vijay, a computer science and engineering student, author and founder of eTechlic, a technical blog. The operator of the website at the disputed domain name was notified of the proceeding at the contact email address indicated on the website at the disputed domain name (which corresponds to his name), and he did not submit any communication in the course of the proceeding. The email address provided by the Registrar as part of the contact details of the registrant of the disputed domain name was used to send a message to the Center in response to the Notice of Registrant Information. This message (reproduced in section 5.B above) is signed by the name that corresponds with this email address and indicates a phone number that coincides with the phone number provided by the Registrar for the registrant of the disputed domain name. This phone number includes the dialing code 372 for Estonia, rather than the dialing code for Hong Kong, China, or for China. In its amendment to the Complaint, the Complainant pointed out that this individual is the founder of the company Adcash - an online advertising platform operating in the same industry and market segment as the Complainant. page 5 None of the above persons or entities submitted a Response or disputed the contentions of the Complainant. None of them denied the existence of a relationship between one another, or explained the nature of such relationship. The coinciding email address and telephone number (which are the only practicable means to communicate with the registrant of a domain name) of the registrant of the disputed domain name show that the disputed domain name is potentially under the control of this individual and his company that is a competitor to the Complainant. In these circumstances, the nature of the relationship between all these parties is inconclusive. The Panel will therefore take into account the conduct of each of these persons or entities in deciding the present dispute, and will hereinafter refer to them jointly as the “Respondent”. 6.2. Substantive issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 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 the PROPELLERADS trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The PROPELLERADS trademark is easily recognizable within the disputed domain name. As discussed in section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. Under the second and third elements, panels will normally find that employing a misspelling in this way signals an intention on the part of the respondent (typically corroborated by infringing website content) to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant. Here, the disputed domain name incorporates the PROPELLERADS trademark with the omission of one letter “l”. This omission may well go unnoticed by Internet users, as it has a negligible effect on the visual appearance and no effect on the pronunciation of the disputed domain name. As further discussed below in this Decision, it appears that the misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name is intentional. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PROPELLERADS trademark for the purposes of the Policy. The PROPELLERADS trademark was registered in 2023, while the disputed domain name was registered in 2013. As discussed in section 1.1.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the trademark registration date is not considered relevant to the first element test. It may however bear on a panel’s further substantive determination under the second and third elements, which will be addressed below. The Panel therefore finds that the first 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 often primarily within the knowledge or control of the page 6 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 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. As discussed in section 2.6 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, UDRP jurisprudence recognizes that the use of a domain name for fair use such as noncommercial free speech, would in principle support a respondent’s claim to a legitimate interest under the Policy. To support fair use under UDRP paragraph 4(c)(iii), the respondent’s criticism must be genuine and noncommercial; in a number of UDRP decisions where a respondent argues that its domain name is being used for free speech purposes the panel has found this to be primarily a pretext for cybersquatting, commercial activity, or tarnishment. Panels also find that even a general right to legitimate criticism does not necessarily extend to registering or using a domain name identical to a trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld> (including typos)); even where such a domain name is used in relation to genuine noncommercial free speech, panels tend to find that this creates an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation. The disputed domain name appears as a misspelled version of the PROPELLERADS trademark and of the Complainant’s domain name <propellerads.com>, while the content on the disputed domain name contains the correct spelling of the PROPELLERADS trademark. The page title of the associated website is “Propelerads, Propelerad, propellerads, propellerad”. This title includes the PROPELLERADS trademark and three misspelled versions of it, and the main page of the website contains criticisms of the Complainant’s services. The Panel notes that the same website as the disputed domain name can be accessed via “www.etechlic.blogspot.com”. Also, as discussed in section 6.1 above, the provided email address of the registrant of the disputed domain name indicates a potential relationship to a competitor of the Complainant. These facts support a conclusion that when it registered the disputed domain name, the Respondent was well aware of the business carried out by the Complainant’s group of companies under the PROPELLERADS brand, and that the disputed domain name was intentionally chosen and registered for its confusing similarity to this brand, although the same had not yet been registered as a trademark. The website at the disputed domain name contains not only criticisms of the Complainant’s activities, but is primarily presented as a technology blog, and includes other content on various topics unrelated to the Complainant’s business. These circumstances do not support a conclusion that the Respondent’s criticisms are merely genuine and noncommercial and not a pretext for cybersquatting, commercial activity or tarnishment of the Complainant’s trademark. In the absence of any denial or evidence supporting a different outcome, all the above taken together leads the Panel to the conclusion that the Complainant’s prima facie case has not been rebutted. The Panel therefore finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 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 disputed domain name appears as an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s PROPELLERADS trademark. As discussed in section 6.2.B above, the circumstances of this case do not support a conclusion that the disputed domain name has been used for a genuine noncommercial criticism. It rather appears that page 7 the Respondent who appears to be related to a competitor of the Complainant was well aware of the Complainant’s business and the PROPELLERADS brand under which it had already been carried out for two years when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name (although the Complainant’s brand had not yet been registered as a trademark at that time). As noted in section 3.8.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the facts of the case establish that the respondent’s intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant’s nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith. In the absence of any denial or allegation to the contrary, the above supports a conclusion that by registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s yet unregistered PROPELLERADDS trademark as to the source or affiliation of the Respondent’s website and of the content in its website. Considering that the disputed domain name appears as an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark that has been registered by a person related to a competitor of the Complainant, and that it is being used for a website that claims that the Complainant’s services are a “scam”, there is also support for a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the disputed domain name has been registered and used for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <propelerads.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: December 5, 2025

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