Nayeffrancis.com

The timeline behind nayeffrancis.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 Nayef Francis v. azisyah HARDIANI Case No. D2025-4901 1. The Parties The Complainant is Nayef Francis, Lebanon, represented by El-Aref International Law Office, Lebanon. The Respondent is azisyah HARDIANI, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nayeffrancis.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 November 25, 2025. On November 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 25, 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 (REGISTRATION PRIVATE, DOMAINS BY PROXY, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 28, 2025, 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 December 1, 2025. 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 December 5, 2025. The Complainant filed an unsolicited Supplemental Filing on December 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 26, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on January 5, 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 The uncontested facts are as follows. The Complainant is a Lebanese designer who has traded under the brand NAYEF FRANCIS, which is his personal name, since at least 2005 in connection with high-end furniture, interior design services, and bespoke artistic installations. The Complainant claims rights in an unregistered mark. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered in 2005. The Complainant claims that he was the initial registrant of the disputed domain name which he has used for his business website until its inadvertent lapse in late 2025. 1 According to the email exchanges with the Registrar available on file, the disputed domain name was acquired by the Respondent in November 2025 after its expiry. It presently resolves to a gambling website targeting Indonesian users. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith in order to take advantage of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for the Respondent’s commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Supplemental Filing The Complainant filed an unsolicited Supplemental Filing. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules grant the Panel sole discretion to determine the admissibility of unsolicited supplemental filings. Admissibility of supplemental filings is to be assessed based on relevance, foreseeability, the need to conduct the proceedings with due expedition, and the equal treatment of the parties so that each has a fair opportunity to present its case. Paragraph 10(b) of the Rules; Societé aux Loteries en Europe, SLE v. Take That Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-0214; and WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.6. The Supplemental Filing contained Registrar’s correspondence sent to the Complainant after the Complaint was filed, indicating that the Respondent was offering the disputed domain name for sale. This could not 1 The Complainant provides a completed declaration stating the same. While no historical WhoIs records showing the same have been provided, the Panel, noting its general powers articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules to conduct limited independent research into matters of public record, has accessed Internet Web Archives and is satisfied that the Complainant had been using the disputed domain name at least until 2019. page 3 have been anticipated by the Complainant when the Complaint was filed, and is relevant to the question of bad faith. The Panel therefore admits the Supplemental Filing. B. 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 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant’s uncontested evidence establishes that he has used the NAYEF FRANCIS mark commercially for roughly twenty years as a trademark, and Internet searches for the Complainant’s mark return top results exclusively relating to the Complainant, indicating that the mark enjoys goodwill and a reputation. In situations where a personal name is being used as a trademark-like identifier in trade or commerce, the complainant may be able to establish unregistered or common law rights in that name for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case where the name in question is used in commerce as a distinctive identifier of the complainant’s goods or services, as in this case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.5.2. The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. C. 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 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. For the reasons discussed in relation to bad faith below, it is most likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances cannot represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and cannot confer rights or legitimate interests. Sistema de Ensino Poliedro Vestibulares Ltda., Editora Poliedro Ltda. v. Anonymize, Inc. / STANLEY PACE, WIPO Case No. D2022-1981. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 D. 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. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name – identical to the Complainant’s personal name and mark – to take advantage of the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for the Respondent’s commercial gain, falling squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel has independently established, using publicly available domain name sales history records, that the disputed domain name was sold in October 2025 through a Registrar expired domain name auction. This corresponds with: a) Internet Archive records showing that the disputed domain name resolved to the website displaying “NAYEF FRANCIS Website Under Construction” in March 2025; b) the Complainant’s account of events indicating that it was the owner of the disputed domain name until late 2025; and c) an update to the WhoIs records for the disputed domain name on November 1, 2025, evidencing a name server change. 2 This all points to it being likely that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in November 2025 after the disputed domain name had lapsed. The Complainant’s mark is exclusively associated with the Complainant, at least insofar as Internet search results are concerned; searches for the Complainant’s mark, which is identical to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, as well as searches for the entire disputed domain name including the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”), return top results exclusively relating to the Complainant. This points to the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant, which is bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Bad faith is also indicated by the complete dissonance between the composition of the disputed domain name on the one hand and the use to which the Respondent put the disputed domain name on the other. There is no apparent correlation between the Complainant’s mark, which is identical to the disputed domain name, and the Indonesian gambling website hosted at the disputed domain name. Without any meaningful explanation from the Respondent, this dissonance calls the Respondent’s intentions for the disputed domain name into question and supports the Panel’s finding of targeting. The Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present proceedings where an explanation is certainly called for. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.3. The Panel 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 <nayeffrancis.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Jeremy Speres/ Jeremy Speres Sole Panelist Date: January 14, 2026 2 In accordance with its powers articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, the Panel is entitled to conduct limited independent research into matters of public record. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.8.

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