Lossless-scaling.app + 9 more domains

The timeline behind lossless-scaling.app

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 Terraheart Software Ltd v. Ahmed Kamel, Mohammad Mizanur Rohoman, IST 30311, Umran Hindal, IST 30311, Muhammad Ali Hasan Case No. D2026-0046 1. The Parties The Complainant is Terraheart Software Ltd, Cyprus, internally represented . The Respondents are Ahmed Kamel, Egypt, mohammad Mizanur Rohoman, IST 30311, United States of America (“United States”), Umran Hindal, IST 30311, United States, and Muhammad Ali Hasan, Pakistan. 2. The Disputed Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <lossless-scaling.app>, <losslessscaling.app>, <lossless-scaling.cc>, <lossless-scaling.info>, and <lossless-scaling.one> are registered with NameSilo, LLC. The disputed domain names <lossless-scaling.download>, <lossless-scaling.online>, <lossless-scaling.pro>, and <losslessscaling.pro> are registered with Spaceship, Inc. The disputed domain name <losslessscaling.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (collectively, the “Registrars”). The Panel will hereinafter refer to the disputed domain names collectively as the “Disputed Domain Names”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 7, 2026. On January 8 and 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On January 8, 9 and 15, 2026, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 9 and 15, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints 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 Disputed Domain Names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 11 and 15, 2026. page 2 The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaints, 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 21, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 10, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on February 11, 2026. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 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 game and app development studio headquartered in Cyprus. The Complainant is the owner of the Lossless Scaling software, designed for scaling and frame generation in game, and distributed since December 28, 2018. The Complainant’s software has been marketed and officially distributed only as paid software, primarily via platforms such as Steam, Humble Bundle and the Complainant’s official website available at the domain name <losslessscaling.com>. The Complainant owns trademark rights for LOSSLESS SCALING, namely the figurative European Union Trademark Registration number 019081623, filed on September 20, 2024, registered January 9, 2025, for goods in class 9. The Disputed Domain Names were registered as follows: - <lossless-scaling.app>, <lossless-scaling.cc>, <lossless-scaling.info>, and <lossless-scaling.one>, were registered on March 17, 2025; - <losslessscaling.app>, was registered on May 20, 2025; - <losslessscaling.online>, was registered on August 10, 2025; and - <lossless-scaling.download>, <lossless-scaling.online>, <lossless-scaling.pro>, and <losslessscaling.pro> were registered on December 2, 2025. According to evidence to the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Names <losslessscaling.app>, <lossless-scaling.app>, <lossless-scaling.online>, <losslessscaling.pro>, <lossless-scaling.download>, and <losslessscaling.online>, were used in connection with websites purporting to offer Lossless Scaling software, using the Complainant’s software name, logo, and screenshots, also providing links to download the full version of the Lossless Scaling software free of charge. Additionally, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name <lossless-scaling.app> features a design that is confusingly similar, apart from a different background, to the website previously associated with the domain name <lossless-scaling.com>, a domain name involved in a decided UDRP dispute. See Terraheart Software Ltd v. laoa nota, and Ahmed Kamel, IST 30311, WIPO Case No. D2025-0458. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Disputed Domain Names were not actively used, being either directed to the Registrar’s hosting webpage, resolving to error pages or pages with the announcement “The website has been stopped. Sorry. This site has been stopped by the administrator, Please contact the administrator for details”. page 3 The Respondent “Ahmed Kamel”, respectively, “Ahmed Kamel, IST 30311” has been involved in previous UDRP disputes decided against it. See GitHub, Inc. v. Ahmed Kamel, WIPO Case No. D2022-3512; and WIPO Case No. D2025-0458 supra. 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 contends the following: - since its release, Lossless Scaling software has gained widespread popularity, it has been reviewed numerous times by the press and media, mentioned in the news, and discussed on forums and social networks and is now recognized under its name by millions of gamers worldwide. The software has consistently used the Lossless Scaling name and logo, establishing significant consumer recognition of the mark prior to the trademark registration date; - the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the LOSSLESS SCALING trademark, as they incorporate the trademark in its entirety, with or without a hyphen; - the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names since: (i) the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names <losslessscaling.app>, <lossless-scaling.app>, <lossless-scaling.online>, <losslessscaling.pro>, <lossless-scaling.download>, and <lossless-scaling.online> falsely represent themselves as the official pages for the Lossless Scaling software by using the software's name, logo, and screenshots. The websites also host links to download the full version of the software and potentially harmful malware; (ii) the Respondents are not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, as there is no indication that the Respondents have used them as part of their business or organization and they appear to have been used for deceptive purposes and do not reflect a genuine business or organizational identity that the Respondents have built; (iii) the Respondents are not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names as they intended to divert users from the official source of Lossless Scaling software for commercial gain, capitalizing on the goodwill of the LOSSLESS SCALING trademark, misleading consumers and potentially preventing the Complainant from reflecting it in corresponding domain names; and - the Respondents registered and are using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith mainly because: (i) at the date of their registration the Lossless Scaling software had already achieved widespread recognition and popularity and the trademark LOSSLESS SCALING predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Names; (ii) the Respondents’ use of the Disputed Domain Names for websites pretending to be official pages for the Complainant’s software suggests that the primary purpose behind the creation of these domain names was to exploit the well-established reputation of the Lossless Scaling name and to mislead users. The use of the Disputed Domain Names was not for any legitimate business purpose, but instead, to benefit from the confusion it causes and to take advantage of the Lossless Scaling name; (iii) the Respondent “Ahmed Kamel”, has been involved in previous UDRP dispute involving the Complainant’s software and trademark ( WIPO Case No. D2025-0458 supra.). Taking into account all the case facts, the Complainant considers that the Respondent is not only continuing its illegal activities but also expanding them, while simultaneously attempting to obscure traces by registering domain names using falsified personal data to complicate the identification of the real registrant. This further supports bad faith registration claim; (iv) regarding the Disputed Domain Names that were not in use at the time of filing the Complaint, given the Respondent’s repetitive behaviour, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is holding them with the intention of later using them for the same bad faith purpose; (v) the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names to impersonate the Complainant, and to distribute software, as a free download (despite the Complainant’s official software being distributed only as paid software), suggests that the Respondent intended to disrupt the Complainant’s business by diverting users who would have otherwise purchased the software legitimately, thereby undermining the Complainant’s revenue model; and (vi) the page 4 software offered under the Disputed Domain Names is bundled with malicious software, which is clear evidence of the Respondent’s intention to deceive users for financial gain, harms the Complainant’s reputation and also poses a significant risk to users. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Procedural Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different Disputed Domain Name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the Disputed 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 disputes 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 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 that the Disputed Domain Names: (i) were created in a similar manner, reproducing the Complainant’s trademark LOSSLESS SCALING exactly, with or without a hyphen; (ii) were registered within a short timeframe, most of them, two groups, in the same day; (iii) are used in similar manner, either associated with websites impersonating the Complainant, or kept inactive; (iv) the Disputed Domain Names associated with active websites, although registered with different Registrars, are hosted by the same hosting provider (i.e. DATAFOREST) and link to illegally distributed copies of the Complainant’s software hosted on the same website at “www.direct-download.giize.com”; (v) all registrant information list inaccurate, incomplete and/or third parties’ postal addresses, and share similar naming pattern, email addresses or other common elements, such as “[...]@gmail.com” and “IST 30311”; and (vi) the Respondents have not objected to the consolidation claims made by the Complainant despite the communications sent by the Center to them. 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: Three Elements Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: (i) the Disputed Domain Names are 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 the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. page 5 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. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the LOSSLESS SCALING mark is reproduced within all the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the 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 notes that the Respondent’s use of part of the Disputed Domain Names suggests that the Respondent intended to attract users to its websites, passing off as the Complainant and/or suggesting an affiliation with it, and finds that such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Moreover, panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as distributing malware, impersonation/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. The Panel further notes that the Disputed Domain Names, reproducing the Complainant’s LOSSLESS SCALING mark in its entirety, carry a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. Therefore, such composition cannot constitute fair use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. 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. page 6 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark particularly because the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant has demonstrated to have used its trademark in commerce since December 2018 and its mark has become known in the gaming sector well before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. 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. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Creating websites displaying the Complainant’s trademark, logo, screenshots and providing links to freely and illegitimately download the Complainant’s software, in this Panel’s view, the Respondent has intended to attract Internet users accessing the website at the Disputed Domain Names who may be confused and believe that the websites are held, controlled by, or somehow affiliated or related to the Complainant, for its commercial gain. This also may disrupt the Complainant’s business and tarnish its trademark. The use of a domain name for illegal activity such as claimed impersonation/passing off, or malware distribution, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent and it is considered evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. At the time of filing of the Complaint, some of the Disputed Domain Names were not connected to active websites. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark; the composition of the Disputed Domain Names (i.e ., reproducing the Complainant’s trademark LOSSLESS SCALING) ; the Respondent’s failure to respond to the present proceedings; the Respondent’s taking active steps to conceal its identity; and the previous use of the Disputed Domain Names and finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of some of the Disputed Domain Names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy provides another circumstance of bad faith registration and use when the respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. The Respondent’s involvement in at least two UDRP procedures decided against it, and the listing of ten Disputed Domain Names in the present proceeding, enforces such finding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.2. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 7 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, <lossless-scaling.app>, <losslessscaling.app>, <lossless-scaling.cc>, <lossless-scaling.download>, <lossless-scaling.info>, <lossless-scaling.one>, <lossless-scaling.online>, <losslessscaling.online>, <lossless-scaling.pro>, and <losslessscaling.pro>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2026

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