Imaginatiorn.com

The timeline behind imaginatiorn.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 The Imagination Group v. Christal Poitevint Case No. D2026-0267 1. The Parties The Complainant is The Imagination Group, United Kingdom, internally represented. The Respondent is Christal Poitevint, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <imaginatiorn.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 21, 2026. On January 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 23, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 27, 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 28, 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 February 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy 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 is a communication and design agency established in 1978, with studios in China, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and elsewhere. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark IMAGINATION, including the United Kingdom trademark registration No. 2626916, registered on January 11, 2013, and the European Union trademark registration No. 014656284, registered on November 3, 2016. The Complainant also owns and operates its primary website at “www.imagination.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on November 12, 2025, and does not resolve to any active website. The Respondent created an email address featuring the disputed domain name and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees and attempted to divert funds of the Complainant’s clients. 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 or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant's trademark only by the insertion of the single letter “r” between the letters “o” and “n” at the end of the word. This is a classic example of “typosquatting”, where a minor misspelling is used to deceive users. The addition of the letter “r” is visually subtle and likely to go unnoticed by Internet users, particularly in the context of email communications where the eye naturally corrects the spelling. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant's trademark or to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor does the Respondent hold any trademark rights in the term “imaginatiorn”. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for illegitimate and fraudulent purposes. The Respondent created an email address, using the disputed domain name to impersonate an actual employee of the Complainant. The Respondent then infiltrated an email thread with one of the Complainant's suppliers attempting to divert funds by requesting payment of deposit invoices. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark is well-known globally. The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name that is a slight misspelling of the Complainant's mark (adding an “r”) clearly indicates the Respondent knew of the Complainant and targeted it specifically. This knowledge is confirmed by the Respondent’s actions: creating an email signature block that replicates the Complainant’s actual corporate branding, address, and website. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails. The Respondent posed as one of the Complainant’s employees using the deceptive email address. The Respondent intercepted legitimate business correspondence and instructed a vendor to “send us the deposit invoices today” and stated that “the team are ready to wire the funds”. The Respondent was page 3 intentionally attempting to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, the use of the disputed domain name for phishing and impersonation is, by itself, evidence of bad faith. 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 Selected 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 applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) 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. Thus, the Panel disregards gTLD “.com” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Panel considers the disputed domain name consists of an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1 section 1.9. 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 The available evidence does not confirm that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones, TheDotCafe, WIPO Case No. D2008-0642). The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed fraudulent emails, 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name nearly identical to the Complainant’s official domain name, intentionally misspelling the Complainant’s trademark, and used it for sending fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant’s employee. The Panel finds this confirms the Respondent was aware of and targeted the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name, which is bad faith. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed phishing, constitutes bad faith. 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 constitute 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 <imaginatiorn.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Taras Kyslyy/ Taras Kyslyy Sole Panelist Date: March 3, 2026

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