Bettyboop.cloud

The timeline behind bettyboop.cloud

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 Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. Betty Clark, Reborn babies Case No. D2026-0070 1. The Parties Complainant is Fleischer Studios, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Venable, LLP, United States. Respondent is Betty Clark, Reborn babies, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bettyboop.cloud> 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 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 9, 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 (Registrant Unknown/Registration Private, Domain by Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 13, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 13, 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 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. Respondent sent email communications to the Center on January 28 and January 31, 2026. The Center notified commencement of Panel appointment on February 6, 2026. Respondent sent further email communications to the Center on February 6 and February 11, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 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. A. Complainant’s Request to Amend After the proceeding was commenced, Complainant sent a request to the Center for permission to file a Second Amended Complainant in order to include three additional domain names. The request, dated January 23, 2026, noted that correspondence from Respondent dated January 13, 2026 had referenced “3 more domain names of Betty Boop”. The January 13, 2026, correspondence from Respondent does not elaborate on which domain names Respondent may have registered, however. While the Panel can infer that the domain names referenced in the correspondence from Respondent correlate with the domain names mentioned in the proposed Second Amended Complainant, they are in pending delete status (following a cancellation command from the Respondent), and therefore it is not possible to include those further domain names in this proceeding. B. Respondent’s Untimely Communications Respondent sent several communications to the Center both before and after the due date set forth for Response of February 5, 2026. The Panel acknowledges these communications, while noting that the communications sent by Respondent after the due date for Response do not add any factual information relevant to the Panel’s decision. 4. Factual Background Complainant is an entertainment company based in the United States. Together with its predecessors in interest (collectively, “Complainant”), Complainant owns rights to the word mark BETTY BOOP for, inter alia, clothing, wallets, and entertainment services. Complainant owns several subsisting trademark registrations for the BETTY BOOP word mark, including, among others, United States Registration Nos. 2,374,258 (registered August 8, 2000); 2,378,474 (registered August 22, 2000); and 6,193,127 (registered November 10, 2020). The disputed domain name was registered on January 2, 2026. The disputed domain name is not currently linked to an active website. Respondent nevertheless has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights to the “well-known” BETTY BOOP word mark, which has garnered “enviable cachet” globally. Complainant contends that it continues to use the BETTY BOOP word mark including in its communications with consumers via Complainant’s official BETTY BOOP website associated with the domain name <bettyboop.com> as well as via various social media platforms, including on Facebook, where Complainant has 1.5 million followers. page 3 Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated in full Complainant’s BETTY BOOP mark into the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain. B. Respondent As noted, Respondent sent several communications to the Center, dated January 28, January 31, February 6, and February 11, 2026. The communications mentioned that “Yes, everything has been canceled” (January 28, 2026), while also stating that “I don’t have the name anymore” (February 6, 2026). Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark, BETTY BOOP, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 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. Complainant has established rights to the mark incorporated in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has not responded with any valid claim to use those terms. The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s Decision, the disputed domain name is not currently linked to an active website. It is nevertheless well established that having a passive website does not necessarily shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3, which notes that the “non-use of a domain name” does not necessarily negate a finding of bad faith. Rather, a panel must examine “the totality of circumstances”, including, for example, whether a complainant has a well-known trademark, and whether a respondent conceals his/her identity and/or replies to the complaint. Complainant has established prior rights in the BETTY BOOP word mark, as well as a degree of renown. Without regard to any other legal rights, Respondent does not deny Complainant’s ownership of registrations for the BETTY BOOP word mark. Given the apparent distinctiveness and reputation of Complainant’s mark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds no plausible good-faith use of the disputed domain name which is identical to said mark, and therefore finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) 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 <bettyboop.cloud> be transferred to Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: February 25, 2026

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