Billingstripe.com

The timeline behind billingstripe.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 Stripe, Inc. v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc. Case No. D2026-0143 1. The Parties The Complainant is Stripe, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Elster & McGrady LLC, United States. The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc., Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <billingstripe.com> is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2026. On January 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 18, 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 (Domain Name Privacy Inc.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 19, 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 21, 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 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 18, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Catherine Slater as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 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 North American technology company offering payment software services that are used by millions of businesses in over 40 countries. The Complainant is the proprietor of the following registrations for its STRIPE mark:- - European Union Trade Mark No. 010112498 for STRIPE (plain word mark), registered on December 14, 2011; - United States Trademark Registration No. 4451679 for STRIPE (plain word mark), registered on December 17, 2013. The Complainant operates a website at “www.stripe.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on March 28, 2024. From an unknown date and until around January 2025 (when the Complainant sent a “disable request” to the host and registrar of the disputed domain name), the disputed domain name redirected to a website containing pornographic content. From March 2025 and continuing at the date of the Complaint, the disputed domain name has variously and on a “carousel basis” re-directed to a pornographic webpage, resolved to a pay-per-click (PPC) ads webpage (including links related to the Complainant’s industry), re-directed to a “security check” webpage that automatically downloads software or resolves to a webpage displaying false malware warning pop-ups. At the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage upon which a pop up invites a check box to be completed in order to verify that the user is not a robot. Checking the box appears to do nothing and it simply appears again. 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 STRIPE trademark because it consists of the entirety of that trademark with the addition of the term “billing” that is specific to the Complainant’s industry and reflects a product provided by the Complainant called “Stripe Billing”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because no licence, permission or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to own or use any domain names confusingly similar to the STRIPE trademark, the Respondent has never operated a bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain name, the Respondent has not made a protected noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, the actual use made is the opposite of legitimate or fair use and can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent and the page 3 Respondent has never been known by, or used, the disputed domain name or the STRIPE trademark (or any variation thereof). The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent knew (or should have known) of the Complainant’s rights in the STRIPE trademark and the use made of the disputed domain name falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant further contends that the bad faith of the Respondent is demonstrated by the activation of MX records and concealment of its identity. 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 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. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “billing”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 that 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. page 4 For completeness, the Panel is satisfied that use made of the disputed domain name seeks to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark (as discussed in more detail below) and cannot therefore give rise to rights or legitimate interests. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. 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. In the present case the Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark to be well-known in relation to billing and payment software. That the Respondent knew of, and targeted, the Complainant and/or its trademark is demonstrated by the use of a term identical to the Complainant’s trademark and coupling it with a term (“billing”) relevant to the Complainant’s industry and likely designed to imitate the Complainant’s “Stripe Billing” service. The Respondent has provided no explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name nor for its concealment of its identity. The Panel infers in the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark in mind and with the intention of diverting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services to its own websites which, at least in relation to the pornographic and PPC sites, are clearly for commercial gain. The Panel does not consider that the “carousel” nature of the re-direction matters when at least some of the websites to which the disputed domain name re-directs/resolves are clearly for commercial gain. The Panel therefore finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of 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 <billingstripe.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Catherine Slater/ Catherine Slater Sole Panelist Date: March 13, 2026

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