Monsterenergy.company

The timeline behind monsterenergy.company

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 Monster Energy Company v. yangyang liu, Nintendo of America Inc. Case No. D2026-0073 1. The Parties The Complainant is Monster Energy Company, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, United States. The Respondent is yangyang liu, Nintendo of America Inc., 1 United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <monsterenergy.company> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 9, 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 the same day, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 9, 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 13, 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”). 1 Based on research provided in the Complaint, Complainant states that “it is likely that this domain was not in fact registered by Nintendo of America”. The Panel agrees. While the Registrar’s registration agreement requires registrants to provide correct information, it is well-known that many registrants – especially cybersquatters – fail to do so, and there is no sufficient mechanism in place to verify such information. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 2, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 8, 2026. The Center appointed Douglas M. Isenberg as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 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 provides an extensive amount of information about its history, its revenue and product development, its sales, its marketing and promotion activities, its website and social media presences, and much more. However, the relevant details are simply that the Complainant says it “is in the business of designing, creating, developing, marketing, and selling beverages”; that it “has used the MONSTER ENERGY® marks in commerce since at least as early as 2002”; that it “extensively uses its MONSTER ENERGY® mark in connection with clothing, beverageware, automotive products, sports and fitness equipment, and other products and services and is well-known throughout the United States and internationally in connection with a wide variety of goods and services”; that it “has sold more than 55 billion cans of MONSTER ENERGY® drinks and now sells approximately 7.7 billion cans per year worldwide”; that “[s]ales of Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY® drinks have generated over [USD] 140 billion in estimated tot al retail revenues internationally”; that “MONSTER ENERGY® brand has established itself as the best- selling energy drink brand in the U.S. by unit volume and dollar value and continues to be the fastest growing major brand of energy drinks in the U.S. and worldwide”; that “MONSTER ENERGY® drinks are generally the best-selling energy drinks in the United States and the second best-selling worldwide”; and that it has operated a website using the domain name <monsterenergy.com> since August 19, 2003. The Complainant states that it “owns numerous trademark registrations throughout the world for Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY® marks used in connection with beverages, nutritional supplements, clothing, accessories, bags, sports gear, stickers, and decals, etc.”. In support, thereof, the Complainant provides a 70-page schedule of registrations worldwide for marks that consist of or contain MONSTER or MONSTER ENERGY, as well as copies of registration certificates for the following: - U.S. Reg. No. 3,057,061 for MONSTER ENERGY (registered February 7, 2006) for use in connection with, inter alia, fruit juice drinks; - U.S. Reg. No. 3,044,315 for MONSTER ENERGY (registered January 17, 2006) for use in connection with, inter alia, nutritional supplements in liquid form; - U.S. Reg. No. 4,036,681 for MONSTER ENERGY (registered October 11, 2011) for use in connection with, inter alia, non-alcoholic beverages. These trademark registrations are referred to herein as the “MONSTER ENERGY Trademark”. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 2, 2025. The Complainant states, and provides screenshots in support thereof, that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in connection with a website that “is currently hosting clickable search results for energy drinks, the exact products for which the Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY brand is most famous”. page 3 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 identical to the MONSTER ENERGY Trademark because, inter alia, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the MONSTER ENERGY Trademark “in its entirety”. - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted Respondent, nor any person or entity, to use the MONSTER ENERGY® Marks in connection with registering a .COMPANY domain name”; “[t]here is no evidence that the Respondent has been or was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name”; “a mark that is well-known can support an inference that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name”; “Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name”; “Complainant never authorized the registration of the <MONSTERENERGY.COMPANY> domain name”; “Respondent is not and has never been an agent of Complainant, nor is there any contractual relationship between Complainant and Respondent”; and “Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized any person or entity to apply for the Disputed Domain Name”. - The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “[g]iven Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations for, and Complainant’s extensive international reputation in, the mark MONSTER ENERGY®, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of Complainant and Complainant’s well-known MONSTER ENERGY® trademarks” (internal punctuation and citation omitted); the Disputed Domain Name “suggests that the website at that domain name is operated by Complainant to promote Complainant’s MONSTER ENERGY® products”; “some of the ads on Respondent’s website at the Disputed Domain Name are for Reign Energy drinks, which is a product line owned by Complainant’s sister company Reign Energy Beverages”; “Respondent is likely profiting from click-through advertising utilizing Complainant’s trademarks and well-known business names on the website at the Disputed Domain Name”; and “the Disputed Domain Name’s webpage included explicit references to Complainant’s product lines, conclusively showing that Respondent was aware of Complainant and intended to confuse potential customers into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is affiliated with, sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise endorsed by Complainant, when it is not”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based upon the trademark registrations cited by the Complainant, it is apparent that the Complainant has rights in and to the MONSTER ENERGY Trademark. As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the MONSTER ENERGY Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name only (i.e., “monsterenergy”) because “[t]he applicable Top-Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.11.1. page 4 As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.1: “in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark..., the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.” Further, where, as here, a disputed domain name contains a complainant’s trademark, and only such trademark, “it is apparent without the need for elaboration, that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to” the trademark, Société Air France v. Indra Armansyah, WIPO Case No. D2016-2027, because in such case “[t]he disputed domain name is obviously identical to the Complainant’s mark”. Icebug AB v. Domain Administrator, WIPO Case No. D2013-1823. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has argued that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted Respondent, nor any person or entity, to use the MONSTER ENERGY® Marks in connection with registering a .COMPANY domain name”; “[t]here is no evidence that the Respondent has been or was commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name”; “a mark that is well-known can support an inference that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name”; “Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name”; “Complainant never authorized the registration of the <MONSTERENERGY.COMPANY> domain name”; “Respondent is not and has never been an agent of Complainant, nor is there any contractual relationship between Complainant and Respondent”; and “Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized any person or entity to apply for the Disputed Domain Name.” WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1, states: “Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” The Panel finds that Complainant has established its prima facie case and without any evidence from Respondent to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’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 registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location. Policy, paragraph 4(b). page 5 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a monetized parking page that includes links related to the MONSTER ENERGY Trademark. Numerous panels have found the registration and use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark to constitute bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy where, as here, the disputed domain name is associated with a monetized parking page that contains links for goods or services competing with the complainant. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Whois Privacy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0850; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. North West Enterprise, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2006-0951; and Dr. Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Private Whois Service, WIPO Case No. D2011-1753. The Panel further notes two additional factors, not directly raised by the Complainant, that establish bad faith. First, as set forth in section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.1: “Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a well-known trademark, and particularly in the case of coined or fanciful marks, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” Here, the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the MONSTER ENERGY Trademark, which is clearly well-known. Second, Respondent’s use of an apparently inaccurate name (see footnote 1, supra) is evidence of “the use of (false) contact details or a privacy shield to hide the registrant’s identity” (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1), which is “noted to be in breach of the respondent’s registration agreement” (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3), creating “an additional ‘Russian doll’ privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service” (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6) and obviously use of “a ‘disclosed’ registrant... [that] prima facie appears to be a false identity” (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.4.6) – all of which is further evidence of bad faith. 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 <monsterenergy.company> be transferred to the Complainant. /Douglas M. Isenberg/ Douglas M. Isenberg Sole Panelist Date: February 24, 2026

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