Microbiome-labs.com

The timeline behind microbiome-labs.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 Novozymes A/S v. yuwen xiao Case No. D2025-4993 1. The Parties The Complainant is Novozymes A/S, Denmark, represented by Plesner Law Firm, Denmark. The Respondent is yuwen xiao, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <microbiome-labs.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2025. On December 2, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 2, 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 (Registrant Unknown) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 4, 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 amendment to the Complaint on December 5, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 December 9, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was December 29, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on January 2, 2026. The Center appointed Christiane Féral-Schuhl as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2026. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an international biosolutions company, operating worldwide, and which is now a part of Novonesis Group. The Complainant produces a wide range of industrial enzymes and microorganisms – the latter to be used in, inter alia, dietary supplements containing probiotics. The Complainant is the owner of the web site “www.microbiomelabs.com”, where p robiotics are being marketed and sold by the legal entity Physicians Exclusive, LLC, d/b/a Microbiome Labs which is also part of the Novonesis Group. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for “MICROBIOME LABS” (the “MICROBIOME LABS Trademarks”), including the f ollowing: - The European Union wordmark MICROBIOME LABS, No. 1456377, registered on February 11, 2019, for goods and services in class 5; - The United Kingdom figurative trademark MICROBIOME LABS, No. UK00003479075, registered on October 30, 2020, f or goods and services in class 5; - The United States of America wo rdmark MICROBIOME LABS, No. 5917017, registered on November 19, 2019, f or goods and services in class 5, on the Supplemental Register. The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2025, and resolves to a commercial website of f ering products identical to those produced by the Complainant and sold by the Novonesis Group. 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 t hat the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name incorporates the whole of its MICROBIOME LABS Trademarks with the mere addition of a hyphen, which does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to register a domain name incorporating them. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to market and sell products identical to those of the Complainant, while copying content, visual elements and contact details f rom the Complainant’s of f icial website, thereby misleading consumers into believing that the website is af f iliated with or operated by the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that its MICROBIOME LABS Trademarks signif icantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name and that, in light of the imitation of the Complainant’s website and products, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s rights. The Complainant f urther submits that the Respondent’s conduct demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract Internet users f or commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with MICROBIOME LABS Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the website, which constitutes bad f aith registration and use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel f inds the mere insertion of a hyphen in place of the space between the two words composing the MICROBIOME LABS Trademarks does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. 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. Indeed, it appears that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks, nor to register or use the disputed domain name incorporating those trademarks. Moreover, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website that impersonates the Complainant by reproducing its trademarks and website content, and by offering for sale products identical to those of the Complainant, thereby creating a f alse impression of af f iliation or endorsement. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation, passing off, or of f ering f or sale products presented as identical to those of the Complainant, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 has registered the disputed domain name well af ter the registration of the MICROBIOME LABS Trademarks. The Panel also notes that the Respondent of fers f or sale, via the website linked to the disputed domain name, products identical to those of the Complainant, impersonating the Complainant by reproducing its trademarks and website content. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad f aith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Mo reo ver, 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation, p assing off, or offering for sale products presented as identical to those of the Complainant, constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. The Panel considers that the website at the disputed domain name is prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark likely to create confusion as to the relationship between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. 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 <microbiome-labs.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Christiane Féral-Schuhl/ Christiane Féral-Schuhl Sole Panelist Date: January 27, 2026

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