Hudabeauties.info

The timeline behind hudabeauties.info

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 Huda Beauty Limited v. yan kaiju Case No. D2025-4899 1. The Parties The Complainant is Huda Beauty Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Rouse Consultancy (Shanghai) Ltd., China. The Respondent is yan kaiju, Afghanistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hudabeauties.info> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 25, 2025. On November 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. Between December 1, 2025, and April 13, 2026, in the absence of any response by the Registrar, the Center transmitted numerous requests for Registrar Verification to the Registrar and brought such delay to the attention of ICANN Compliance. On April 13, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 13, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 14, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 4, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 5, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 6, 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 to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a beauty brand and beauty influencer with more than 57 million Instagram followers. The Complainant operates internationally with more than 100 products in over 50 countries. The Complainant offers cosmetics products under its HUDABEAUTY trademark and skincare products under its WISHFUL trademark. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in different jurisdictions, such as European Union Trademark Registration No. 015755549 for HUDABEAUTY (figurative), registered on December 19, 2016, in classes 3, 9, 35, 41 and 44. The Complainant has registered the domain name <hudabeauty.com> in 2010. The Complainant runs its main webpage from this domain name. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name was registered on November 4, 2025. The Complainant documents that the Domain Name has resolved to websites that without authorization mimic the Complainant through using the Complainant’s trademarks and product images. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant documents registered trademark rights and argues that the trademark has broad reputation worldwide. The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The mere registration of a domain name is not sufficient to establish rights. The Respondent has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for websites displaying the Complainant’s trademark and product images is evidence of bad faith use. The use of the Domain Name demonstrates that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its prior registered rights when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is also proof of bad faith use as it gives a false impression of affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain through the creation of a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 3 The Complainant has established rights in its trademark HUDABEAUTY. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with a minor alteration, “beauty” is altered to “beauties”. The alteration does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. A dominant feature of the trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 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. While 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 often-impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant has satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Complainant asserts that there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name - as described above – does not meet the criteria for bona fide reseller use. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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 composition and use of the Domain Name manifest that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use as described above is in bad faith. The Domain Name appears to be registered to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. page 4 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 Domain Name <hudabeauties.info> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: May 7, 2026

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