Hellobuddle.sbs

The timeline behind hellobuddle.sbs

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 Bubble Beauty, Inc. DBA Bubble Skincare v. da xiong Case No. D2026-0229 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bubble Beauty, Inc. DBA Bubble Skincare, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC, United States. The Respondent is da xiong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hellobuddle.sbs> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 20, 2026. On January 21, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 22, 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 (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 23, 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 26, 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 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on February 27, 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, established in 2018 with its principal place of business in New York, United States, is a global retailer of a line of skincare products. The products are sold by retailers in over 12,000 stores in the United States and online in the United States and other countries around the world. The Complainant has trademarks such as: - United States Trademark Registration No. 7,043,262 for BUBBLE SKINCARE, registered on May 2, 2023; - United States Trademark Registration No. 7,569,764 for BUBBLE FRESH START, registered on November 19, 2024; and - United States Trademark Registration No. 7,899,066 for BUBBLE, registered on August 19, 2025. The Complainant registered the domain name <hellobubble.com> on May 20, 2019, which has been used for advertising, promotion and sale of its products. The disputed domain name was registered on December 28, 2025, and it resolves to a website similar to the Complainant’s website, and offering Complainant’s skincare products at discount prices using the Complainant’s logos. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any substantive arguments in this case, the following decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant. In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) The disputed domain name is 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 respect of the disputed domain name; and page 3 (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Panel finds the Complainant has established registered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The disputed domain name incorporates the term “buddle” which replaces the two “b” in the Complainant’s BUBBLE trademark with two “d”. This is a typical example of typosquatting. In applying the first element of the Policy, it can be held that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BUBBLE trademark. Accordingly, 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. The Respondent’s offer for sale under the disputed domain name of the Complainant’s products, using the Complainant’s logo and without any indication of its lack of relationship with the Complainant is not a bona fide offering. Accordingly, 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, in consideration of the fact that the Complainant, founded in 2018, and has since been doing business in skincare market through retail stores and online, and the fact that the Complainant registered the domain name <hellobubble.com> in 2019, which has been used for advertising, promotion and sale of its products, and noting the use of the disputed domain name for resale of the Complainant’s page 4 products, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s BUBBLE trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name on December 28, 2025. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. With regard to the requirement that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain as described above constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <hellobuddle.sbs> be transferred to the Complainant. /Masato Dogauchi/ Masato Dogauchi Sole Panelist Date: March 4, 2026

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