Cheeromni.com

The timeline behind cheeromni.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 Elite Sportswear, L.P. v. Carlo Panaccione, Carlo Panaccione Case No. D2026-0066 1. The Parties The Complainant is Elite Sportswear, L.P., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Venable, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Carlo Panaccione, Carlo Panaccione, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cheeromni.com> is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount- Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 8, 2026. On January 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 14, 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 (Whois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 14, 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 14, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 6, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Elizabeth Ann Morgan as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 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, founded in 1992, offers one of the world’s leading brand of cheerleading uniforms, clothing, shoes, bags, and accessories, and is the owner of the U.S. trademark registrations, such as United States Trademark Reg. No. 3292783 for OMNI CHEER, registered on September 18, 2007 (together with the Complainant’s common law rights, the “OMNI CHEER Marks”). The Complainant principally markets the OMNI CHEER Marks for a wide range of consumer products, including but not limited to cheerleading uniforms, clothing, shoes, bags, and accessories, all of which are sold online through Complainant’s website at “www.omnicheer.com”. The Complainant conducts business on the Internet, and the OMNI CHEER Marks have a strong Internet presence. For example, the Complainant operates an online store featuring the Complainant’s authentic cheerleading uniforms, clothing, shoes, bags and accessories. In addition to the <omnicheer.com> domain name, the Complainant also owns and maintains numerous domain names incorporating the OMNI CHEER Marks, including <omnicheer.net>, <omnicheer.us>, and <omnicheers.com>. As a result of long, continuous, and extensive use, advertising, and promotion of the OMNI CHEER Marks, and the commercial success of the Omni Cheer online store and other products and services offered thereunder, the OMNI CHEER Marks have developed an enviable cachet, image, and reputation in the cheerleading apparel industry and to consumers throughout the World. The goodwill associated with the OMNI CHEER Marks is of inestimable value to Complainant. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 30, 2025, over three decades after Complainant began using its OMNI CHEER Marks. The Respondent has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the OMNI CHEER Marks in a domain name or in any other manner from the Complainant, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the OMNI CHEER Marks by the Respondent. Indeed, at no time did the Respondent have authorization from the Complainant to register the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers for sale identical products under the false guise that the Respondent is the source of authentic products offered under the OMNI CHEER Marks, when they are not. “About us” section of the website refers to the Complainant and claims to be a part of 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 Respondent has registered the disputed domain to pass itself off as the Complainant and to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. 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 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 Select UDRP Questions (“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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name albeit in reverse order. The trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 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, 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 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. 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. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here claimed impersonation/passing off of the Complainant constitutes bad faith under the policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 <cheeromni.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Elizabeth Ann Morgan/ Elizabeth Ann Morgan Sole Panelist Date: March 2, 2026

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