Haleonltd.com

The timeline behind haleonltd.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 Haleon UK IP Limited v. Boots HK, anthoney Case No. D2025-5135 1. The Parties The Complainant is Haleon UK IP Limited, United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is Boots HK, anthoney, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <haleonltd.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 10, 2025. On December 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 11, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 12, 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 16, 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 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 6, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on January 2, 2026, invoking the automatic 4-day extension, suggesting it would be filing a response. On January 12, 2026, the Center reported the lack of response to the parties. page 2 The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on January 21, 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 Complainant is a British multinational consumer healthcare company established in July 2022 as a corporate spin-off from GSK plc and, was formerly known by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (UK) IP Limited. The Complainant was subsequently listed on the London and New York stock exchanges and holds multiple trademark registrations, including international trademark registration number 1674572 for HALEON, registered on November 29, 2021, and Hong Kongese trademark registration number 306170409 for HAELON, registered on February 16, 2023. The Complainant’s companies, subsidiaries and associated offices operate worldwide, including one of its subsidiaries in Hong Kong, China, Haleon Hong Kong Limited. The Complainant holds the domain name <haleon.com> that it uses in connection with a website where it provides information about itself and its products. The Complainant also operates social media accounts under the name Haleon. The disputed domain name was registered on September 4, 2025, and redirects to a site that purports to offer pharmaceutical and nutraceutical distribution services and, where a modified version of the HALEON trademark and logo is reproduced. The Complainant sent to the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on October 10, 2025, and October 17, 2025, which was not answered. The Respondent’s email account listed in the WhoIs records is the same email address that was used by a different registrant in Haleon UK IP Limited v. Flex Chen, WIPO Case No. D2025-2531, involving the domain name <haleonhk.com>, which was ultimately transferred to the Complainant. 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 includes the entirety of the HALEON mark with the addition of the letters “l”, “t” and “d”, commonly abbreviated as “ltd ” for the term “limited”. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has any trademark rights to the term HALEON or any evidence that the Respondent holds rights to an unregistered trademark to the terms HALEON or “Haleonltd”. Besides, Google searches for “Haleon ltd” social media pages returned results of the Complainant’s services as the top result. page 3 The Complainant highlights that the address listed on the website at the disputed domain name is the same as that listed on a website of another cybersquatting version of a third-party brand, Novavax. The Complainant is also not aware of any company registration for “Haleon ltd” in Hong Kong, China. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f) of the Rules to prevent the Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to file a Response. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration. 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 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 confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, ”ltd” ,an acronym for “limited”, 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 the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds 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. page 4 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. The Panel finds that none of the circumstances depicted in paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy applies in this case. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation/passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Indeed, the circumstances of the case lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent attempted to impersonate the Complainant. As such, the composition of the disputed domain name coupled with the reproduction Complainant’s HALEON trademark on the website at the disputed domain name - which purports to offer pharmaceutical and nutraceutical distribution services and displays a modified version of the HALEON trademark and logo - does not confer upon the Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent meets the circumstances depicted under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. That is to say, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The composition of the disputed domain name coupled with the use of a modified version of HALEON trademark on the website at the disputed domain name supports this finding. 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. On balance, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name due to its reputation and distinctiveness in the healthcare industry. Moreover, Complainant’s mark and a modified logo are reproduced on the website at the disputed domain name as a means to take advantage of the goodwill and attractiveness of the HALEON trademark. Thus, the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its trademarks, and the registration was in bad faith. page 5 There are also serious doubts about the real identity of the Respondent. The use of its email account in another WIPO UDRP case as mentioned above, the use of the same postal address as another third-party company, and the absence of evidence of any company registration for “Haleon ltd” in Hong Kong, China, further support the Panel’s conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 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 <haleonltd.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Manuel Moreno-Torres/ Manuel Moreno-Torres Sole Panelist Date: February 4, 2026

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