Wd40-officialegypt.com

The timeline behind wd40-officialegypt.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 WD-40 Manufacturing Company v. Adel Fouad, Mediaserv Case No. D2026-0015 1. The Parties The Complainant is WD-40 Manufacturing Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Adel Fouad, Mediaserv, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <wd40-officialegypt.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 January 5, 2026. On January 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 5, 2026, 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 DomainsByProxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 6, 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 January 7, 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 January 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on February 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 Complainant is a subsidiary of WD-40 Company, a manufacturer of household and multi-use products and owns trademark registrations for WD-40 in numerous jurisdictions such as the following: 1. United States Trademark Registration No. 0670503, registered on December 2, 1958; and 2. United States Trademark Registration No. 1007258, registered on March 25, 1975. The Complainant owns the domain name <wd40.com.eg>. The disputed domain name was created on July 23, 2024, and resolves to a website which displays the Complainant’s trademark (logo), replicates its color scheme, claims to be the Complainant’s official importer in Egypt and purports to offer the Complainant’s products. 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 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark WD-40. The Top-Level Domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement and should as such be disregarded. The terms “official Egypt” increase the confusing similarity. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. The placement of the hyphen does not diminish confusing similarity. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that mimics the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website though the use of the Complainant’s distinctive logo and blue and yellow color scheme. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use its trademark. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which claims to offer the Complainant’s products and attempts to pass off as the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark is known internationally and was used since 1953 while the disputed domain name was registered in 2024. The Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark as the disputed domain name resolves to a website which impersonates the Complainant. The Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks by using a confusingly similar domain name, to host a website featuring the Complainant’s logo and color scheme, and claiming to be affiliated with, connected to the Complainant. The Respondent is attempting to profit from such confusion by offering the Complainant’s own products for sale. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and resolves to a website that offers the Complainant’s goods or services without authorization. The disputed domain name is set up with Mail Exchanger (MX) records which can be used for fraudulent activity. A privacy service was used, which is further evidence of bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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, “official” “egypt” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name resolves to a website, which displays the Complainant’s trademark and states that it is the Complainant’s official importer in Egypt. Also, the Complainant’s trademark was registered decades before the creation of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark together with the term “official” and the geographical term “Egypt”, creating a false impression that the Respondent is the Complainant’s authorized distributor or representative in that country and evidences the Respondent’s intent to deceive, confirming registration and use 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 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed, impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name 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 name <wd40-officialegypt.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nayiri Boghossian/ Nayiri Boghossian Sole Panelist Date: February 9, 2026

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