Appealdiscord.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind appealdiscord.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Discord Inc. v. mel john perodes, facebook-meta, French Gokongwei, Maria Angienela Baldoza, Swimlead Singapore Case No. D2026-0005 1. The Parties The Complainant is Discord Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Abion GmbH, Switzerland. The Respondents are mel john perodes, facebook-meta, Philippines; French Gokongwei, Philippines; and Maria Angienela Baldoza, Swimlead Singapore, Philippines. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain name <appealdiscord.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. The disputed domain names <discordappeal.com>, <discordappeals.com>, and <discordtrust.com> are registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (collectively the “Disputed Domain Names” and the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 2, 2026. On January 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On January 6, 2026 and January 9, 2026, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center the verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 18, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar(s), requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the Disputed Domain Names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 22, 2026. page 2 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 23, 2026. The Center appointed Nicholas Weston as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 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 operates a well-known online voice, video and text chat application with more than 563 million registered users in 2024. It holds a portfolio of registrations for its trademark, and variations of it, in numerous countries. An example includes United States Registration No. 4930980 for the trademark DISCORD registered on April 5, 2016, and International trademark registration No. 1493333 for the trademark DISCORD registered on August 27, 2019. The Complainant owns numerous domain names that comprise or contain the trademark DISCORD, including the domain name <discord.com>. The Disputed Domain Name <discordappeal.com> was registered by Maria Angienela Baldoza, Swimlead Singapore on October 10, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com> was registered by mel john perodes, facebook-meta on October 2, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name <discordtrust.com> was registered by Maria Angienela Baldoza, Swimlead Singapore on November 10, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name <appealdiscord.com> was registered by French Gokongwei on September 30, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com> resolved to a webpage impersonating the Complainant (by prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark and a copyright notice “© 2025 Discord Inc. • All rights reserved”) in a phishing scheme to obtain their account credentials, and currently is inactive. The Disputed Domain Names <discordappeal.com>, <discordtrust.com>, and <appealdiscord.com> did not and do not resolve to active websites. 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 Names. Notably, the Complainant cites its trademark registrations for the mark DISCORD and variations of it, in numerous countries, as prima facie evidence of ownership. page 3 The Complainant contends that its rights in that the mark DISCORD mark predate the Respondents’ registration of the Disputed Domain Names. It submits that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its trademark, because each is comprised of the DISCORD trademark along with the terms “appeal,” and “appeals” or “trust”, under the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”, and that these variables are not sufficient to avoid the confusing similarity. The Complainant contends that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because it “did not authorize the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Names incorporating its trademarks nor have the Complainant endorsed or sponsored the Respondent or the Respondent’s websites” and that none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names were, and currently are, in bad faith, contrary to the Policy and the Rules having regard to the prior use and “well- known” nature of the Complainant’s trademark. On the issue of registration, the Complainant states that its “the trademark DISCORD is well-known in the market of messaging and chat services”, citing Discord Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Maven Pos Service LLP, Tilek Suierkulov, WIPO Case No. D2021-0893. The Complainant also contends that “the structure of the Disputed Domain Names – incorporating the Complainant’s trademark entirely along with the relevant terms ‘appeal’, ‘appeals’, and ‘trust’ – reveals that the Respondent’s intention in registering the Disputed Domain Names was to refer to the Complainant and its trademark, and to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant and its trademark in Internet users’ minds”. On the issue of use the Complainant contends that “the Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com> resolve[d] to a developed website showcasing the Discord trademark in prominent positions (in an obvious attempt to pose as a legitimate online presence of the Complainant) while asking users to submit their Username and ticket number in order to check on the status of their Discord account”. It also contends that “the Disputed Domain Names <discordappeal.com>, <discordtrust.com>, and <appealdiscord.com> are currently passively held” and that “the non-use of a domain would not prevent a finding of bad faith”. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue A. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable page 4 to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes the following: — the Disputed Domain Names were registered within a two-month period. — the Disputed Domain Names <discordappeal.com>, <discordappeals.com>, and <discordtrust.com> were registered through the same Registrar. — the Disputed Domain Names share a similar pattern using the Complainant’s DISCORD trademark followed by terms suggestive of official appeal, trust and safety procedures: “appeal”, “appeals”, and “trust”. — the Disputed Domian Names <appealdiscord.com> and <discordappeals.com> share the same contact phone number and email address despite not sharing the same Registrar. — All of the Disputed Domain Names have been registered by a party allegedly residing in the Philippines. The evidence submitted points to the fact that all the Disputed Domain Names are subject of common control by the Respondents. The Respondents had the opportunity but did not respond to the Complaint. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Issues Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following: (i) that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) that the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 Names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. The requirements of the first element for purposes of the Policy may be satisfied by a trademark registered in any jurisdiction. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in the mark DISCORD in several countries. Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the DISCORD trademark, the Panel observes that — the Disputed Domain Name <discordappeal.com> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the word “appeal”; (e) followed by the gTLD “.com”. page 5 — the Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the word “appeals”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.com”. — the Disputed Domain Name <discordtrust.com> is comprised of: (a) the Complainant’s trademark; (b) followed by the word “trust”; (c) followed by the gTLD “.com”. — the Disputed Domain Name <appealdiscord.com> is comprised of: (a) the word “appeal”; (b) followed by the Complainant’s trademark; (c) followed by the gTLD “.com”. It is well established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of each of the Disputed Domain Names, specifically: “discordappeal”, “discordappeals”, “discordtrust”, and “appealdiscord”, respectively. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy also. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although, the addition of the such as “appeal,” “appeals” or “trust”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements in relation to the Disputed Domain Names, the Panel finds the addition of those terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between that Disputed Domain Names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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. 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 Disputed Domain Names (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 3.1, section 2.1. The Panel finds that there is no indication that the Respondent was commonly known by the term “Discord” prior to registration of the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant has not licensed, permitted, or authorized the Respondent to use the trademark DISCORD. The Panel also notes that the composition of the Disputed Domain Names carries a risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1). The Panel notes the evidence that the Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com> was used “in connection with a phishing attempt, where the Respondent has clearly impersonated the Complainant”, and has supplied evidence in the form of a landing page that seeks to capture private user information. The Panel naturally finds that this does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed phishing, passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. page 6 The Panel notes the evidence that each of the Disputed Domain Names <discordappeal.com>, <discordtrust.com>, and <appealdiscord.com> resolved and currently to an inactive webpage, and that the Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com> now currently resolves to an inactive webpage also, which supports the Complainant’s evidence, and finds neither this (nor the previous trading on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademarks using the Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com>), represent a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, given the substantial reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark or capacity to otherwise mislead Internet users. 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 Names. 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 Names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established for the Disputed Domain Names. 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. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence in the case shows the Respondent registered and has used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. On the issue of registration, taking into account the composition of the Disputed Domain Names and the well-known nature of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark DISCORD when it registered the Disputed Domain Names. This Panel finds that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Names other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s well-known trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Further, a gap of several years between registration of a complainant’s trademark and respondent’s registration of a disputed domain name (containing the trademark) may indicate bad faith registration. In this case, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names at least nine years after the Complainant established registered trademark rights in the DISCORD mark. The Respondent has not come forward to rebut the Complainant’s allegations or offer any alternative explanation. On the issue of use, the Disputed Domain Names do not currently resolve to active websites. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s taking active steps to conceal its identity or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent’s registration agreement). Taking the above factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the page 7 less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the Complainant’s well-known DISCORD trademark, the composition of the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to conceal its identity, and the Respondent’s failure to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good- faith use and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Complainant’s evidence is also that the Disputed Domain Name <discordappeals.com> resolved, for a period of time, to, it submits: “a developed website showcasing the Discord trademark in prominent positions throughout the website (in an obvious attempt to pose as a legitimate online presence of the Complainant) while asking users to submit their Username and ticket number in order to check on the status of their Discord account”. Targeting of this nature is a common example of bad faith as referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and identified in many previous UDRP decisions. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. There is also evidence that the Respondent provided false contact details to shield its identity when registering the Disputed Domain Names. Previous panels have found that providing false information for the WhoIs database to shield a registrant’s identity (which is also in breach of the registration agreement) is clear evidence of the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration and can support an inference of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 Names <appealdiscord.com>, <discordappeal.com>, <discordappeals.com>, and <discordtrust.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nicholas Weston/ Nicholas Weston Sole Panelist Date: March 6, 2026

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